5 ms·

As a born NZ citizen I welcome people like Thiel. He may have bought his citizenship, but we could do with more like him.

by xupybd 10y ago

owenwil 10y ago
As a born NZ citizen as well, are you serious? More rich people that are - generally speaking - racist, sexist, anti-democracy and have tendencies to sue news organizations into the ground while calling it "charity"? He can ultimately do what he wants, but I don't think we need more of these types of people.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  What makes you believe Thiel is racist or sexist? Also, the idea of rich people/foundations/etc supporting lawsuits for ideological reasons is hardly new. Do you similarly oppose the Southern Poverty Law Center, who successfully filed (valid) lawsuits against the Aryan Nations with the goal of shutting them down? Or the Conservation Law Foundation, and all their donors? https://www.splcenter.org/seeking-justice/case-docket/keenan-v-aryan-nations https://www.splcenter.org/seeking-justice/case-docket/keenan... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxonmobil-lawsuit-conservation-law-foundation-climate-change_us_57ec1512e4b024a52d2c5ae5 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxonmobil-lawsuit-conse...
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - owenwil 10y ago
    It's good to see HN's "whataboutism" is alive and well https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      Whataboutism is a perfectly valid argumentation technique. If you argue against person X for doing Z, but not against person Y who does the same thing, it suggests you might actually just have a grudge against X. I'm asking whether you actually object to funding valid lawsuits against people due to speech you object to, or whether that's simply a cheap attack line.
  - GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/peter-thiel-women-democracy_us_5747079be4b03ede4413f6f5 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/peter-thiel-women-democr...
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      What exactly in this article do you believe is racist or sexist? From what I can tell, Thiel made one factual statement - that women (and welfare beneficiaries) vote for policies he considers harmful. Do you think that factual statement is wrong? If I made a similar factual statement - say "white people were more likely to support Trump" - does that imply I'm biased against white people?
- xupybd 10y ago
  I agree that we don't want more racist, sexist and anti-democracy people here. I don't believe Thiel is. But rich people I have nothing against, I welcome wealth coming into the country. And suing a private company, well let the case stand on its merits, I don't take issue with that.
  - owenwil 10y ago
    Peter Thiel openly wrote that he thought it might have been better for democracy if women didn't vote. I don't think that's a great place to start.
    - strken 10y ago
      If we're talking about the same piece, what he wrote is more nuanced: Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron.[0] This seems similar to the claim "if white people didn't vote, Trump would have lost in a landslide", which almost nobody takes to mean white people shouldn't vote. [0] https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...
    - defen 10y ago
      No, he wrote: > Since 1920 the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron. If you read the original essay[1] you will see that he is making a descriptive and not a proscriptive point. He is not saying "we should not let women vote, because then we could have capitalist democracy". He is saying "women are not attracted to libertarian politics, and they have the franchise, therefore capitalist democracy is not going to happen. Therefore, we should go beyond politics to make it happen". He suggests three ways of making it happen: Cyberspace, outerspace, seasteading. [1] https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...
  - deleted 10y ago
tekklloneer 10y ago
As a born US citizen, I welcome people like Thiel leaving. I'm glad he was able to buy his citizenship, and we could do with less like him.
- aoeu345 10y ago
  I think you're crazy. We are in dire need of more people willing to give money to tech ventures that will help North America's GDP growth. Let's not try and interpret the political stuff - Losing a venture capitalist like Thiel is a direct hit to our ability to innovate. Hell, the guy is giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to ambitious, smart High School students. That's not something to overlook.
  - tekklloneer 10y ago
    Thiel supported Trump and built an escape plan. It's not that he doesn't have a skin in the game, but if the game turns bad, he can bail and leave "us" behind.
    - aoeu345 10y ago
      I see where you're coming from. But I won't weigh someone's politics when determining if they are a good American or not. Politics are too complex to interpret good and bad, but giving money to tech ventures is decidedly good for our economy.
      - tekklloneer 10y ago
        I normally wouldn't either, but he has supported a candidate who is possibly not up to the task and developed an escape plan.
        aoeu345 10y ago
        Your argument is bad for two reasons. One, being 'up to the task' is subjective. Two, nobody but Peter Thiel knows why he got the citizenship. My argument is good because I argue 'If you invest in tech, you help the economy, and that is good' which has no assumptions or opinions in it.
metaphorm 10y ago
what if Thiel decides he doesn't like you, or people like you, and swings his influence hammer at your government and creates a hostile political climate for you, and your friends, and family? He has already demonstrated his willingness and ability to do this. Why do you trust him?
- defen 10y ago
  As an example of the disconnect between most commenters on here, and the rest of the country: Imagine that you own a pizzeria in a small town of 2,000 people. Imagine that you hold social beliefs that, 50 years ago, would have been considered not just banal, but so unremarkable that the alternative is not even seriously considered by anyone. 30 years ago, that alternative was not actually legal in any country in the world. Today, it's still (barely) a minority belief. Now imagine someone asks you to violate that social belief, and you say no. And as a result, a gigantic media firestorm erupts. The President of the USA makes fun of you. The CEO of the world's largest public corporation writes an op-ed decrying your beliefs. People trash your online reputation. Anonymous people threaten to burn down your restaurant. Eventually you're forced to close because there has been such a tremendous backlash. The system in power in the USA has already demonstrated its willingness and ability to do this. Why would people who disagree with these things trust it to have that kind of power? Why wouldn't they try to burn it all down or replace it?
  - metaphorm 10y ago
    I don't understand your point. How far along the reductio ad absurdum should we go? You described the holdouts of the 1950s era of American culture. Suppose there was a holdout from the 1850s era of American culture. Should we give deference to their cultural preferences which include all of the following: ownership of human beings as property (only if they have dark skin, though), subjugation of women who are legally disenfranchised, and enthusiasm for genocidal military actions against indigenous people. so...where do you draw the line? by what means do we determine by what means, and under what circumstances, people might express their cultural preferences? I think there is a difference between a "media firestorm" (emergent phenomenon) and the directed effort of an eccentric billionaire.
Florin_Andrei 10y ago
Oh, don't worry. He'll bring the seeds of Freedom (TM) to your country, no doubt.

As a born NZ citizen I welcome people like Thiel. He may have bought his citizenship, but we could do with more like him.

by xupybd 10y ago

As a born NZ citizen I welcome people like Thiel. He may have bought his citizenship, but we could do with more like him.

owenwil 10y ago

As a born NZ citizen as well, are you serious? More rich people that are - generally speaking - racist, sexist, anti-democracy and have tendencies to sue news organizations into the ground while calling it "charity"? He can ultimately do what he wants, but I don't think we need more of these types of people.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
What makes you believe Thiel is racist or sexist? Also, the idea of rich people/foundations/etc supporting lawsuits for ideological reasons is hardly new. Do you similarly oppose the Southern Poverty Law Center, who successfully filed (valid) lawsuits against the Aryan Nations with the goal of shutting them down? Or the Conservation Law Foundation, and all their donors? https://www.splcenter.org/seeking-justice/case-docket/keenan-v-aryan-nations https://www.splcenter.org/seeking-justice/case-docket/keenan... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxonmobil-lawsuit-conservation-law-foundation-climate-change_us_57ec1512e4b024a52d2c5ae5 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxonmobil-lawsuit-conse...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- owenwil 10y ago
  It's good to see HN's "whataboutism" is alive and well https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    Whataboutism is a perfectly valid argumentation technique. If you argue against person X for doing Z, but not against person Y who does the same thing, it suggests you might actually just have a grudge against X. I'm asking whether you actually object to funding valid lawsuits against people due to speech you object to, or whether that's simply a cheap attack line.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/peter-thiel-women-democracy_us_5747079be4b03ede4413f6f5 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/peter-thiel-women-democr...
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    What exactly in this article do you believe is racist or sexist? From what I can tell, Thiel made one factual statement - that women (and welfare beneficiaries) vote for policies he considers harmful. Do you think that factual statement is wrong? If I made a similar factual statement - say "white people were more likely to support Trump" - does that imply I'm biased against white people?
xupybd 10y ago
I agree that we don't want more racist, sexist and anti-democracy people here. I don't believe Thiel is. But rich people I have nothing against, I welcome wealth coming into the country. And suing a private company, well let the case stand on its merits, I don't take issue with that.
- owenwil 10y ago
  Peter Thiel openly wrote that he thought it might have been better for democracy if women didn't vote. I don't think that's a great place to start.
  - strken 10y ago
    If we're talking about the same piece, what he wrote is more nuanced: Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron.[0] This seems similar to the claim "if white people didn't vote, Trump would have lost in a landslide", which almost nobody takes to mean white people shouldn't vote. [0] https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...
  - defen 10y ago
    No, he wrote: > Since 1920 the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron. If you read the original essay[1] you will see that he is making a descriptive and not a proscriptive point. He is not saying "we should not let women vote, because then we could have capitalist democracy". He is saying "women are not attracted to libertarian politics, and they have the franchise, therefore capitalist democracy is not going to happen. Therefore, we should go beyond politics to make it happen". He suggests three ways of making it happen: Cyberspace, outerspace, seasteading. [1] https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...
- deleted 10y ago

tekklloneer 10y ago

As a born US citizen, I welcome people like Thiel leaving. I'm glad he was able to buy his citizenship, and we could do with less like him.

aoeu345 10y ago
I think you're crazy. We are in dire need of more people willing to give money to tech ventures that will help North America's GDP growth. Let's not try and interpret the political stuff - Losing a venture capitalist like Thiel is a direct hit to our ability to innovate. Hell, the guy is giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to ambitious, smart High School students. That's not something to overlook.
- tekklloneer 10y ago
  Thiel supported Trump and built an escape plan. It's not that he doesn't have a skin in the game, but if the game turns bad, he can bail and leave "us" behind.
  - aoeu345 10y ago
    I see where you're coming from. But I won't weigh someone's politics when determining if they are a good American or not. Politics are too complex to interpret good and bad, but giving money to tech ventures is decidedly good for our economy.
    - tekklloneer 10y ago
      I normally wouldn't either, but he has supported a candidate who is possibly not up to the task and developed an escape plan.
      - aoeu345 10y ago
        Your argument is bad for two reasons. One, being 'up to the task' is subjective. Two, nobody but Peter Thiel knows why he got the citizenship. My argument is good because I argue 'If you invest in tech, you help the economy, and that is good' which has no assumptions or opinions in it.

metaphorm 10y ago

what if Thiel decides he doesn't like you, or people like you, and swings his influence hammer at your government and creates a hostile political climate for you, and your friends, and family? He has already demonstrated his willingness and ability to do this. Why do you trust him?

defen 10y ago
As an example of the disconnect between most commenters on here, and the rest of the country: Imagine that you own a pizzeria in a small town of 2,000 people. Imagine that you hold social beliefs that, 50 years ago, would have been considered not just banal, but so unremarkable that the alternative is not even seriously considered by anyone. 30 years ago, that alternative was not actually legal in any country in the world. Today, it's still (barely) a minority belief. Now imagine someone asks you to violate that social belief, and you say no. And as a result, a gigantic media firestorm erupts. The President of the USA makes fun of you. The CEO of the world's largest public corporation writes an op-ed decrying your beliefs. People trash your online reputation. Anonymous people threaten to burn down your restaurant. Eventually you're forced to close because there has been such a tremendous backlash. The system in power in the USA has already demonstrated its willingness and ability to do this. Why would people who disagree with these things trust it to have that kind of power? Why wouldn't they try to burn it all down or replace it?
- metaphorm 10y ago
  I don't understand your point. How far along the reductio ad absurdum should we go? You described the holdouts of the 1950s era of American culture. Suppose there was a holdout from the 1850s era of American culture. Should we give deference to their cultural preferences which include all of the following: ownership of human beings as property (only if they have dark skin, though), subjugation of women who are legally disenfranchised, and enthusiasm for genocidal military actions against indigenous people. so...where do you draw the line? by what means do we determine by what means, and under what circumstances, people might express their cultural preferences? I think there is a difference between a "media firestorm" (emergent phenomenon) and the directed effort of an eccentric billionaire.

Florin_Andrei 10y ago

Oh, don't worry. He'll bring the seeds of Freedom (TM) to your country, no doubt.