7 ms·

Political Showdown: Peter Thiel vs. Google’s Eric Schmidt

21 points by mysticlabs 10y ago

flukus 10y ago
> There’s been a lot of talk in Silicon Valley about Peter Thiel’s public contributions, and support for Donald Trump, yet no one seems to be talking about Eric Schmidt’s private contributions to the Clinton campaign that were just exposed via Wikileaks. Because he picked the "right" side, you only got bullied if you support the "wrong" one.
- Grazester 10y ago
  It's simply because its trump. The things he says are controversial and donating to him says you support his controversial views. Clinton is not without controversy either but I think its more of a political controversy and being expose for what she is...a cunning politician. Is there any other way to be a successful politician?
- bko 10y ago
  Well think about it this way, if a corporate executive like Thiel were caught saying much of Trump's campaign rhetoric, he would likely face consequences. Just a few that come to mind "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." [0] "26,000 unreported sexual assults in the military-only 238 convictions. What did these geniuses expect when they put men & women together?" [1] "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on" [2] Considering that this last one would be considered hate speech and banned on Facebook if it were not made by a major US politician [3], I think openly supporting the candidate and going out of your way to help his campaign is fair game for criticism [0] http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/donald-trump-speech-debates-and-campaign-quotes-1.11206532 http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/donald-trump-speech-debat... [1] https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/331907383771148288 https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/33190738377114828... [2] http://www.amny.com/news/elections/donald-trump-s-memorable-controversial-quotes-1.11177219 http://www.amny.com/news/elections/donald-trump-s-memorable-... [3] http://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-employees-pushed-to-remove-trump-posts-as-hate-speech-1477075392 http://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-employees-pushed-to-rem...
  - farright 10y ago
    The fact that people would face "consequeces" for making these political statements is exactly why Trump has been so popular. People are afraid to say even innocent or true things because those will result them being branded as "racist". For example even good liberals who believe that black communities are caught in a cycle of crime, have to self-censor because the only acceptable position is that black crime is entirely caused by a biased criminal justice system. I don't think Trump phased it very well but I do think that illegal immigration is a net negative for the US, and it wouldn't' surprise me if illegal immigrants were disproportionately criminal. What's undeniable is that illegal immigration is connected with new patterns of organized crime, even if the overall crime rate is similar.
    - drewrv 10y ago
      Free speech does not mean consequence free speech. It's not some gross injustice that saying racist things or supporting racist candidates makes people think you're racist.
      - farright 10y ago
        You're completely missing my point. Did you read the whole post or just the first sentence? My point was that people shouldn't be punished for saying reasonable things, but currently they are.
      - flukus 10y ago
        Creating consequences for speech just pushes the speech underground where it can't be challenged. Then when someone like Trump pops up people wonder where all the support is coming from.
    - flukus 10y ago
      > People are afraid to say even innocent or true things because those will result them being branded as "racist". For example even good liberals who believe that black communities are caught in a cycle of crime, have to self-censor because the only acceptable position is that black crime is entirely caused by a biased criminal justice system. And the result of that is a self perpetuating system. If they really wanted to solve the situation they'd frame it as the socio economic issue it is.
- legodt 10y ago
  Right and wrong are pretty well defined here when the "wrong" side is constantly engaging in racism, mysoginy, and general hate speech.
  - farright 10y ago
    The polls show that the tactic of defining things you disagree with to be "racism, mysoginy, and general hate speech" isn't working.
    - legodt 10y ago
      Or perhaps the majority of America is just still super into that sort of thing. Thanks for making this throwaway account today just to spread your ignorance by replying.
      - farright 10y ago
        Same goes for throwing around terms like "ignorance". You need to make an actual argument. Also not a throwaway, I'm here to stay. And please stop with the rude comments[0]. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        legodt 10y ago
        Okay, here's my argument. Argumentum ad popularum does not excuse abhorrent opinions, and your support of this makes you supportive of racism and mysoginy. This does not stop existing because people support it, it just makes them racist and mysoginsitic by extension. Like you.
  - vonklaus 10y ago
    Almost no one can be intellectually honest & disagree with your statement. However, when both candidates are indisputably criminals who are self-serving, dishonest and utterly treacherous, the debate is what is "less wrong". I honestly go back and forth and will probably write in vote "No Confidence" as it is the only morally justifiable thing I find possible.
jessriedel 10y ago
I wonder why these guys don't just agree to jointly donate their money to charity. https://sideways-view.com/2016/10/31/repledge/ https://sideways-view.com/2016/10/31/repledge/
oever 10y ago
> How is it acceptable that the Chairman of one of the largest corporations in American can fund a secret startup that works directly for the [candidate's] campaign? Meanwhile, potentially contributing hundreds of thousands of dollars personally to the [candidate's] foundation? Not only that, but the company's main revenue is from its ability to influence people's actions, e.g. voting, via advertising.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
internaut 10y ago
Thiel and Schmidt have two very different worldviews, they had a debate on capital 'P' progress a few years ago. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsXFwy6gG_4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsXFwy6gG_4 Many people find Thiel's argument hard to believe, especially if they are aspirational middle class types. This is because normal people have a chronocentric bias. Of all our biases, this one is probably the strongest of all. If you find Thiel's position hard to believe, it is worth examining what our grandparents thought about the future. "The Home of the Future in 1999" (from the 1960s) https://youtu.be/0RRxqg4G-G4 https://youtu.be/0RRxqg4G-G4 I am at the point where I consider the optimistic narrative (ex-computation) utterly without supporting evidence. It is all PR and marketing. Here is one example. Consider the discovery of DNA. Important scientifically. And all the resultant research into genetics since. But tell me what relevance any of it has had to the average person? Have we new drugs? More effective treatments? Cheaper medicine? This is a minor heresy among the 'educated' but to me the answer is clearly no. Think about that for a minute or two. Either I am mad, or in half a century there has been no measurable effects. If the second is true then why do we believe CRISPR is going to revolutionize everything outside? The discovery of DNA itself, the Human Genome Project. The cheaper shotgun sequencing. These should have had enormous material effects on society. It does nothing! Food prices should be much lower. They are static or increasing. Timber should be of higher quality. It is actually much lower than before. Any non-niche new building materials out of biotech. I am unable to identify any. New breeds of animals for livestock, pets, where are they? The farmers I know use a process mostly identical to their ancestors from several thousand years ago, only a little more streamlined thanks to more specific egg/sperm selection. Yes you can give me niche applications and cool stuff in a lab somewhere, but I'm asking about people's offices, homes, on the streets. The fact is that we've been talking about vat-grown meat and lab-grown replacement organs for 50 years, and they aren't here yet. Do we have to wait for another 50?
- zimpenfish 10y ago
  > lab-grown replacement organs for 50 years, and they aren't here yet Not entirely true - http://www.livescience.com/44756-lab-grown-vagina-implants.html http://www.livescience.com/44756-lab-grown-vagina-implants.h... And also - http://www.livescience.com/48196-lab-grown-penises.html http://www.livescience.com/48196-lab-grown-penises.html which isn't an actual success story yet but does include the paragraph > The human penis is the latest, but hardly the first organ Atala and his colleagues have tried to produce. The team created and transplanted the first human bladder in 1999, the first urethra in 2004 and the first vagina in 2005, the Guardian reported.

21 points by mysticlabs 10y ago

> There’s been a lot of talk in Silicon Valley about Peter Thiel’s public contributions, and support for Donald Trump, yet no one seems to be talking about Eric Schmidt’s private contributions to the Clinton campaign that were just exposed via Wikileaks. Because he picked the "right" side, you only got bullied if you support the "wrong" one.

Grazester 10y ago
It's simply because its trump. The things he says are controversial and donating to him says you support his controversial views. Clinton is not without controversy either but I think its more of a political controversy and being expose for what she is...a cunning politician. Is there any other way to be a successful politician?
bko 10y ago
Well think about it this way, if a corporate executive like Thiel were caught saying much of Trump's campaign rhetoric, he would likely face consequences. Just a few that come to mind "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." [0] "26,000 unreported sexual assults in the military-only 238 convictions. What did these geniuses expect when they put men & women together?" [1] "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on" [2] Considering that this last one would be considered hate speech and banned on Facebook if it were not made by a major US politician [3], I think openly supporting the candidate and going out of your way to help his campaign is fair game for criticism [0] http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/donald-trump-speech-debates-and-campaign-quotes-1.11206532 http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/donald-trump-speech-debat... [1] https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/331907383771148288 https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/33190738377114828... [2] http://www.amny.com/news/elections/donald-trump-s-memorable-controversial-quotes-1.11177219 http://www.amny.com/news/elections/donald-trump-s-memorable-... [3] http://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-employees-pushed-to-remove-trump-posts-as-hate-speech-1477075392 http://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-employees-pushed-to-rem...
- farright 10y ago
  The fact that people would face "consequeces" for making these political statements is exactly why Trump has been so popular. People are afraid to say even innocent or true things because those will result them being branded as "racist". For example even good liberals who believe that black communities are caught in a cycle of crime, have to self-censor because the only acceptable position is that black crime is entirely caused by a biased criminal justice system. I don't think Trump phased it very well but I do think that illegal immigration is a net negative for the US, and it wouldn't' surprise me if illegal immigrants were disproportionately criminal. What's undeniable is that illegal immigration is connected with new patterns of organized crime, even if the overall crime rate is similar.
  - drewrv 10y ago
    Free speech does not mean consequence free speech. It's not some gross injustice that saying racist things or supporting racist candidates makes people think you're racist.
    - farright 10y ago
      You're completely missing my point. Did you read the whole post or just the first sentence? My point was that people shouldn't be punished for saying reasonable things, but currently they are.
    - flukus 10y ago
      Creating consequences for speech just pushes the speech underground where it can't be challenged. Then when someone like Trump pops up people wonder where all the support is coming from.
  - flukus 10y ago
    > People are afraid to say even innocent or true things because those will result them being branded as "racist". For example even good liberals who believe that black communities are caught in a cycle of crime, have to self-censor because the only acceptable position is that black crime is entirely caused by a biased criminal justice system. And the result of that is a self perpetuating system. If they really wanted to solve the situation they'd frame it as the socio economic issue it is.
legodt 10y ago
Right and wrong are pretty well defined here when the "wrong" side is constantly engaging in racism, mysoginy, and general hate speech.
- farright 10y ago
  The polls show that the tactic of defining things you disagree with to be "racism, mysoginy, and general hate speech" isn't working.
  - legodt 10y ago
    Or perhaps the majority of America is just still super into that sort of thing. Thanks for making this throwaway account today just to spread your ignorance by replying.
    - farright 10y ago
      Same goes for throwing around terms like "ignorance". You need to make an actual argument. Also not a throwaway, I'm here to stay. And please stop with the rude comments[0]. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - legodt 10y ago
        Okay, here's my argument. Argumentum ad popularum does not excuse abhorrent opinions, and your support of this makes you supportive of racism and mysoginy. This does not stop existing because people support it, it just makes them racist and mysoginsitic by extension. Like you.
- vonklaus 10y ago
  Almost no one can be intellectually honest & disagree with your statement. However, when both candidates are indisputably criminals who are self-serving, dishonest and utterly treacherous, the debate is what is "less wrong". I honestly go back and forth and will probably write in vote "No Confidence" as it is the only morally justifiable thing I find possible.

jessriedel 10y ago

I wonder why these guys don't just agree to jointly donate their money to charity. https://sideways-view.com/2016/10/31/repledge/ https://sideways-view.com/2016/10/31/repledge/

oever 10y ago

> How is it acceptable that the Chairman of one of the largest corporations in American can fund a secret startup that works directly for the [candidate's] campaign? Meanwhile, potentially contributing hundreds of thousands of dollars personally to the [candidate's] foundation? Not only that, but the company's main revenue is from its ability to influence people's actions, e.g. voting, via advertising.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

internaut 10y ago

Thiel and Schmidt have two very different worldviews, they had a debate on capital 'P' progress a few years ago. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsXFwy6gG_4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsXFwy6gG_4 Many people find Thiel's argument hard to believe, especially if they are aspirational middle class types. This is because normal people have a chronocentric bias. Of all our biases, this one is probably the strongest of all. If you find Thiel's position hard to believe, it is worth examining what our grandparents thought about the future. "The Home of the Future in 1999" (from the 1960s) https://youtu.be/0RRxqg4G-G4 https://youtu.be/0RRxqg4G-G4 I am at the point where I consider the optimistic narrative (ex-computation) utterly without supporting evidence. It is all PR and marketing. Here is one example. Consider the discovery of DNA. Important scientifically. And all the resultant research into genetics since. But tell me what relevance any of it has had to the average person? Have we new drugs? More effective treatments? Cheaper medicine? This is a minor heresy among the 'educated' but to me the answer is clearly no. Think about that for a minute or two. Either I am mad, or in half a century there has been no measurable effects. If the second is true then why do we believe CRISPR is going to revolutionize everything outside? The discovery of DNA itself, the Human Genome Project. The cheaper shotgun sequencing. These should have had enormous material effects on society. It does nothing! Food prices should be much lower. They are static or increasing. Timber should be of higher quality. It is actually much lower than before. Any non-niche new building materials out of biotech. I am unable to identify any. New breeds of animals for livestock, pets, where are they? The farmers I know use a process mostly identical to their ancestors from several thousand years ago, only a little more streamlined thanks to more specific egg/sperm selection. Yes you can give me niche applications and cool stuff in a lab somewhere, but I'm asking about people's offices, homes, on the streets. The fact is that we've been talking about vat-grown meat and lab-grown replacement organs for 50 years, and they aren't here yet. Do we have to wait for another 50?

zimpenfish 10y ago
> lab-grown replacement organs for 50 years, and they aren't here yet Not entirely true - http://www.livescience.com/44756-lab-grown-vagina-implants.html http://www.livescience.com/44756-lab-grown-vagina-implants.h... And also - http://www.livescience.com/48196-lab-grown-penises.html http://www.livescience.com/48196-lab-grown-penises.html which isn't an actual success story yet but does include the paragraph > The human penis is the latest, but hardly the first organ Atala and his colleagues have tried to produce. The team created and transplanted the first human bladder in 1999, the first urethra in 2004 and the first vagina in 2005, the Guardian reported.