5 ms·

Since this space appears to be a referendum on Thiel's involvement with Trump (mostly), let me just offer this perspective: in Thiel's main business of being an

Since this space appears to be a referendum on Thiel's involvement with Trump (mostly), let me just offer this perspective: in Thiel's main business of being an investor in startups, this could backfire if enough founders find the association repugnant enough they'd refuse money from Thiel. This isn't hypothetical; my cofounder and I agree that we won't take money from Thiel or any Thiel-affiliated fund. Let the flaming commence, I guess.

civilian 10y ago
How is it repugnant?
- ryandamm 10y ago
  Because it's supporting an authoritarian liar, who denies the validity of established science, the rule of law, and the normal checks and balances of government. He also has suggested he'll trample on civil rights, including the freedom of press, speech, and the civil liberties of many Americans. Just out of curiosity, were you paying attention during the election, and if so, where did you get your information?
  - civilian 10y ago
    I was paying attention :) The left is anti-GMO, which is straight-up anti-science. (Which, I also need to add, is the kind of anti-science which will exacerbate food scarcity in Africa. Drought-resistance crops save lives.) They also tend to harbor anti-vaxxers, althought Trump is also an anti-vaxxer. IDK! I'm just so tired of the emotional crybabying from the left. I agree (with Trump) that the media is extremely biased-- if you watched Trump's press conference today you'll see it. And the left tended to just piss on the way that Trump talked. They don't even see that he's a master of words in his own way. He looks like a fool, but he's _wailing_ on the left. Here's how the next 4 years are going to go down. The left is going to continue crying wolf/fascist/racist/sexist/whatever. Moderates and independents are going to see a mediocre presidency, but _not_ the authoritarianism you think we're in for. And then he's going to get re-elected, because of the low expectations.
    - ryandamm 10y ago
      Again, where do you get your news? I find anyone that most people who posit a monolithic "left" are typically consuming a strange brew. Anyone who cares about truth -- not just in science, but in economics, policy, etc, should be horrified by what Trump represents. And I'd take even money against him being re-elected. There are betting sites that are offering even money that he won't even finish four years, and based on how he's handling the transition, that seems correct. I think being president is harder than you think, by the way. And I'm extremely pessimistic that Trump's up for it. He certainly hasn't done anything to demonstrate that he's capable.
      - civilian 10y ago
        I read The Economist regularly, and I read miscellaneous articles from the NYTimes, HuffPo, WashingtonPost that comes up on HN/FB. I enjoy the Joe Rogan podcast but Rogan is wildly uninformed and likes to push conspiracy theories. I think you're looking for a "badMedia -> uninformedCitizen" trend, but you're not going to find it. My values are just libertarian--- so I've been on the sidelines every presidential race ever. I wasn't excited about either candidate. I just want to hear some good honest arguments. But I see so much emotional manipulation from the left.
        GrinningFool 10y ago
        If you're only seeing emotional manipulation from the left, you're only seeing half the story.
        civilian 10y ago
        So, I grew up in Portland, went to school in Massachusetts, and live in Seattle now. I totally agree that I'm probably not seeing a lot of the stupid shit that the Right is saying, just based off of who my friends and community are. I critique where I can. :]
        ryandamm 10y ago
        I subscribe to the Economist, too. Their opinion of Trump jibes with mine, as far as I can tell. Do you disagree? And I ask about media because you've got to start from an agreed upon set of facts. That didn't used to be so difficult. (Not sure we disagree on facts here, but it's the easiest explanation for wildly different opinions on this subject. Might as well dispense with the big issues first, eh?)
  - Inconel 10y ago
    With the exception of denying the validity of science, couldn't most of those things be said about President Obama and most mainstream Democrats as well, particularly in regards to issues like mass surveillance?
    - ryandamm 10y ago
      I do have heartburn about mass surveillance -- and watching "Citizen Four" was an eye-opener. Snowden should be pardoned, and given a medal. But I think there's false equivalence at work, here. Maybe there are no good guys in politics, but there are definitely bad guys. I think Obama was a thoughtful, careful centrist on most issues. He tried to be bipartisan early in his first term. The Republicans were categorically obstructionist. Trump is a populist demagogue. Downvote away if you must, but look up the definition of those words too. It's true. And saying "eh, they're all the same anyway" misses the point. It's easy and convenient to say that, and maybe it makes you seem cool. But it's really not true. Obama is nothing like Trump. They're both complicated men. But they're not equivalent, not even close. I mean, let's be real, here: one's the child of a single mother and an immigrant, who experienced the world as an immigrant, and growing up in the US as a black man. The other inherited a fortune from his father, and made his reputation play-acting as a boss on reality television. (The first one is Obama, the second one is Trump.) Their biographies are wildly divergent, as are their reasons for public service, and what they're trying to do while in office.
      - Inconel 10y ago
        I appreciate your response, but still disagree on some things. I'm not necessarily convinced that Obama was as thoughtful as he's made out to be. He's certainly more polished than many politicians but underneath that veneer he seems every bit as calculating and power hungry as most. And to be honest, if he is as thoughtful as many say, and yet still endorsed the expansion of mass surveillance along with some of our recent foreign policy interventions, my opinion of him would probably go even lower. With regards to false equivalency, I'm sympathetic to your point and even agree that Obama and Trump are not equal on my sliding scale of bad, but from my personal point of view, when both are already so far down that scale it can become difficult for me to parse the differences. As to any downvotes you have received, none of them came from me. We might disagree here but I think we've both been respectful of each other's views. As a side note, I generally really dislike the downvote mechanism as a way to voice disagreement. If I disagree with a comment enough to consider downvoting it, I find it much more constructive to instead post a rebuttal.
  - ElijahLynn 10y ago
    Why is this greyed out?
    - ryandamm 10y ago
      Downvotes.
- meowface 10y ago
  It's repugnant for anyone who finds Trump repugnant. And neutral, I guess, for everyone else.
GrinningFool 10y ago
Not flaming, I don't think, but pragmatism: > This isn't hypothetical; my cofounder and I agree that we won't take money from Thiel or any Thiel-affiliated fund. Have any such offered funding? Would your convictions hold true if they were the only ones offering funding? We (people) have a tendency to make statements like this when it's safe to do so - such as when there is no such offer on the table - but it's not as easy to do when the distasteful choice is the only one available.
- ryandamm 10y ago
  It doesn't work that way. You reach out to funds, work the circuit, etc. Any investment requires time from both parties, and it takes weeks to close a transaction. Thiel-affiliated funds are automatically off my list. We've had a few cold outreach investors contact us, but not many. Most are referral-based. Funds live and die on dealflow. There's a limited amount of time to talk to investors, so you have to prioritize. Funds that are de-prioritized don't get the opportunity. In other words, I won't ever have to decide whether my convictions are that strong, because that scenario wouldn't happen. Ask an investor for their perspective, though. I'm sure it will corroborate my experience.
  - GrinningFool 10y ago
    Fair enough, thanks for the explanation.

civilian 10y ago

How is it repugnant?

ryandamm 10y ago
Because it's supporting an authoritarian liar, who denies the validity of established science, the rule of law, and the normal checks and balances of government. He also has suggested he'll trample on civil rights, including the freedom of press, speech, and the civil liberties of many Americans. Just out of curiosity, were you paying attention during the election, and if so, where did you get your information?
- civilian 10y ago
  I was paying attention :) The left is anti-GMO, which is straight-up anti-science. (Which, I also need to add, is the kind of anti-science which will exacerbate food scarcity in Africa. Drought-resistance crops save lives.) They also tend to harbor anti-vaxxers, althought Trump is also an anti-vaxxer. IDK! I'm just so tired of the emotional crybabying from the left. I agree (with Trump) that the media is extremely biased-- if you watched Trump's press conference today you'll see it. And the left tended to just piss on the way that Trump talked. They don't even see that he's a master of words in his own way. He looks like a fool, but he's _wailing_ on the left. Here's how the next 4 years are going to go down. The left is going to continue crying wolf/fascist/racist/sexist/whatever. Moderates and independents are going to see a mediocre presidency, but _not_ the authoritarianism you think we're in for. And then he's going to get re-elected, because of the low expectations.
  - ryandamm 10y ago
    Again, where do you get your news? I find anyone that most people who posit a monolithic "left" are typically consuming a strange brew. Anyone who cares about truth -- not just in science, but in economics, policy, etc, should be horrified by what Trump represents. And I'd take even money against him being re-elected. There are betting sites that are offering even money that he won't even finish four years, and based on how he's handling the transition, that seems correct. I think being president is harder than you think, by the way. And I'm extremely pessimistic that Trump's up for it. He certainly hasn't done anything to demonstrate that he's capable.
    - civilian 10y ago
      I read The Economist regularly, and I read miscellaneous articles from the NYTimes, HuffPo, WashingtonPost that comes up on HN/FB. I enjoy the Joe Rogan podcast but Rogan is wildly uninformed and likes to push conspiracy theories. I think you're looking for a "badMedia -> uninformedCitizen" trend, but you're not going to find it. My values are just libertarian--- so I've been on the sidelines every presidential race ever. I wasn't excited about either candidate. I just want to hear some good honest arguments. But I see so much emotional manipulation from the left.
      - GrinningFool 10y ago
        If you're only seeing emotional manipulation from the left, you're only seeing half the story.
        civilian 10y ago
        So, I grew up in Portland, went to school in Massachusetts, and live in Seattle now. I totally agree that I'm probably not seeing a lot of the stupid shit that the Right is saying, just based off of who my friends and community are. I critique where I can. :]
      - ryandamm 10y ago
        I subscribe to the Economist, too. Their opinion of Trump jibes with mine, as far as I can tell. Do you disagree? And I ask about media because you've got to start from an agreed upon set of facts. That didn't used to be so difficult. (Not sure we disagree on facts here, but it's the easiest explanation for wildly different opinions on this subject. Might as well dispense with the big issues first, eh?)
- Inconel 10y ago
  With the exception of denying the validity of science, couldn't most of those things be said about President Obama and most mainstream Democrats as well, particularly in regards to issues like mass surveillance?
  - ryandamm 10y ago
    I do have heartburn about mass surveillance -- and watching "Citizen Four" was an eye-opener. Snowden should be pardoned, and given a medal. But I think there's false equivalence at work, here. Maybe there are no good guys in politics, but there are definitely bad guys. I think Obama was a thoughtful, careful centrist on most issues. He tried to be bipartisan early in his first term. The Republicans were categorically obstructionist. Trump is a populist demagogue. Downvote away if you must, but look up the definition of those words too. It's true. And saying "eh, they're all the same anyway" misses the point. It's easy and convenient to say that, and maybe it makes you seem cool. But it's really not true. Obama is nothing like Trump. They're both complicated men. But they're not equivalent, not even close. I mean, let's be real, here: one's the child of a single mother and an immigrant, who experienced the world as an immigrant, and growing up in the US as a black man. The other inherited a fortune from his father, and made his reputation play-acting as a boss on reality television. (The first one is Obama, the second one is Trump.) Their biographies are wildly divergent, as are their reasons for public service, and what they're trying to do while in office.
    - Inconel 10y ago
      I appreciate your response, but still disagree on some things. I'm not necessarily convinced that Obama was as thoughtful as he's made out to be. He's certainly more polished than many politicians but underneath that veneer he seems every bit as calculating and power hungry as most. And to be honest, if he is as thoughtful as many say, and yet still endorsed the expansion of mass surveillance along with some of our recent foreign policy interventions, my opinion of him would probably go even lower. With regards to false equivalency, I'm sympathetic to your point and even agree that Obama and Trump are not equal on my sliding scale of bad, but from my personal point of view, when both are already so far down that scale it can become difficult for me to parse the differences. As to any downvotes you have received, none of them came from me. We might disagree here but I think we've both been respectful of each other's views. As a side note, I generally really dislike the downvote mechanism as a way to voice disagreement. If I disagree with a comment enough to consider downvoting it, I find it much more constructive to instead post a rebuttal.
- ElijahLynn 10y ago
  Why is this greyed out?
  - ryandamm 10y ago
    Downvotes.
meowface 10y ago
It's repugnant for anyone who finds Trump repugnant. And neutral, I guess, for everyone else.

GrinningFool 10y ago

Not flaming, I don't think, but pragmatism: > This isn't hypothetical; my cofounder and I agree that we won't take money from Thiel or any Thiel-affiliated fund. Have any such offered funding? Would your convictions hold true if they were the only ones offering funding? We (people) have a tendency to make statements like this when it's safe to do so - such as when there is no such offer on the table - but it's not as easy to do when the distasteful choice is the only one available.

ryandamm 10y ago
It doesn't work that way. You reach out to funds, work the circuit, etc. Any investment requires time from both parties, and it takes weeks to close a transaction. Thiel-affiliated funds are automatically off my list. We've had a few cold outreach investors contact us, but not many. Most are referral-based. Funds live and die on dealflow. There's a limited amount of time to talk to investors, so you have to prioritize. Funds that are de-prioritized don't get the opportunity. In other words, I won't ever have to decide whether my convictions are that strong, because that scenario wouldn't happen. Ask an investor for their perspective, though. I'm sure it will corroborate my experience.
- GrinningFool 10y ago
  Fair enough, thanks for the explanation.