5 ms·

> As a rich white guy, being an activist/loudmouth in the #resistance often means taking up political positions that are against my own apparent self-interest.

> As a rich white guy, being an activist/loudmouth in the #resistance often means taking up political positions that are against my own apparent self-interest. These oppressive zealots in the White House... > You mean beyond fighting a despotic regime... > I assure you, that’s not going to happen. Nevertheless, I am spending a great deal of time meeting with all of the beautifully spontaneous and decentralized organizations that have been popping up in the wake of our electoral calamity as well as dozens of candidates at all levels of government. I find so much hope in the new wave of leaders and builders who are standing up during these times and I want to be there to support them. I will have more to say about this in the days ahead, but, you know the drill. I'm sure that this is a common sentiment out in the Valley, but it's really kinda distressing to see people with access to so much capital writing with such melodrama. There's so much wrong at the local level--homelessness, education, people broke with medical problems--and yet these folks seem a lot more concerned with a strawman oppression.

sulam 9y ago
It's not a strawman opposition when you see people you work with unable to re-enter the country, environmental leadership questioning the human role in global warming (or even the role of CO2 in warming!), members of organizations that openly identify with the Nazi movement as first tier advisors to the president, etc... This is not a strawman, this is real and it's worth fighting. So are the other things you mention, but everyone is free to pick their fight.
- angersock 9y ago
  Everyone is free to pick their fight, sure, but when people have accumulated great power there is great responsibility, no? And if these people come from a philosophical and cultural and political monoculture, I think it's reasonable to be suspicious about them. FWIW, I feel the same way about the energy execs and crooked politicians--except in the case of at least Trump, there is at least a mandate of government granted by the people that voted for him. Who, exactly, voted for these millionaires? Nobody.
  - sulam 9y ago
    So if the next election goes the other way, you're going to be supportive of the Chris Saccas of the world and discount the Gary Cohns and Steven Bannons? (note I purposefully am picking two very divergent points of view from within the Trump administration who happen to be multimillionaires). At the end of the day, I personally care about actions and how they stack up against my personal ethical and moral compass. You are obviously free to use whatever method you want to decide if someone is doing good in the world. And yes, Sacca is free to spend his money however he likes. I also support Rebekah Mercer's right to spend her money on vicious attack ads. I don't have to respect her for it -- regardless of who won the election -- and you don't have to respect Chris Sacca. Regarding monocultures -- circumscribe a set tightly enough and everyone comes from a monoculture. I don't think Sacca is any less exposed to divergent viewpoints than the Mercer's are, to use a relevant example. And finally, just to respond to your overarching argument that Sacca has some responsibility to use his money in a particular way. He may believe so, and that wouldn't make it any more your business how he does it. And if he chooses to spend it on wine, art, and yacht collecting because that's what he wants to do with it we can both believe he can do better (Larry Ellison, if you're reading this: you can do better) -- but the society we live in hasn't made us the arbiters of good billionaire behavior, more's the pity. :)
    - angersock 9y ago
      So, if Bannon and Cohn were to go and start rabble-rousing about the "resistance" and the "despotic democrats" (and Lord knows folks did plenty of that when Obama took office), I'd be similarly annoyed. My overarching argument is not quite that Sacca has a responsibility to use his money in a particular way--it's more that I find it distressing that powerful people (that arguably should know better) seem to have gotten caught up in the zeitgeist of the times and aren't being more conservative (in the "wait, let's stop and think about what we're actually advocating and how that could play out") and open-minded (in the "wait, maybe these other points of view are simply different and not always wrong"). I feel the same way about folks on the other side--they just tend not to show up on HN as much.
  - s73ver 9y ago
    "except in the case of at least Trump, there is at least a mandate of government granted by the people that voted for him." More people voted for Not Trump than voted for Trump.
Thrillington 9y ago
With most people, I'd agree with you that local engagement would be more effective. Doubly so in the homeless hating bay area. However, Chris' access to capital, which equates to power in America, makes it more successful for him to fight on the federal level. trump in the white house has emboldened local behavior that threatens our education/healthcare systems, the homeless and countless other social safety net related issues. There are plenty of us left who can bring the fight on the local level. I'm coming around to the idea that winning the larger fights is also important. I've not heard of Chris Sacca before reading this article. He appears to be that rare person with an understanding of the social obligations of wealth and the means to build some larger communities around that.
- angersock 9y ago
  I'm unconvinced that somebody who made their money in many cases exploiting the little guy ( https://lowercasecapital.com/posse/ https://lowercasecapital.com/posse/ ) is suddenly finding religion here in any meaningful way. Action at the large levels is remote and indistinct, and boils down to status signalling and rich people games. Paying for housing and food and shelter and schooling and grants and libraries and hospitals goes a hell of a lot farther...just see the good works of Carnegie and Kaiser, to name two. Here's an interesting read you may enjoy along similar lines: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/how-democrats-killed-their-populist-soul/504710/?single_page=true https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/how-dem...
hsod 9y ago
Your criticism here is that he expressed his opposition to Trump with too much "melodrama"? That's pretty weak. Sometimes dramatic things happen. Sometimes dramatic language is warranted.
jamespo 9y ago
Your argument is just the fallacy of relative privation "why are you worrying about X when Y?" Different things concern different people.
rconti 9y ago
Yes, at the margins, EVERYTHING a President does will hurt people, cost lives, etc. One can only hope that, on balance, their decisions are beneficial rather than negative. In that sense, you can look for (and find!) outrage or great success in any person with such a weighty job. For that reason, I don't disagree that there's a lot wrong at the local level, and in many ways any action you could personally take would be better taken at such a level where you can create real impact. That said, I'm not sure it's at all melodramatic when you consider the tone that the "leader of the free world" sets in terms of what's socially acceptable, how to treat others, and so on. And I don't mean in the sense of "oh, anti-Semitic attacks are up 13.5%!" -- there is SO much that can be fudged in compiling this kind of data. I mean more in the sense of "suddenly it's acceptable to be an unrepentant outright liar every hour of the day, and people will not just look past it, but literally disbelieve their own ears."
anoonmoose 9y ago
The three local things you mentioned are all gonna get worse as a result of that "despotic regime", so...yeah.
- angersock 9y ago
  Probably. Then again, how much progress did SF make on homelessness under Obama?
oever 9y ago
Sacca is 'raising three wonderful kids' and 'passionate about solving our climate disaster'. The first thing to do to help climate change is to avoid reduce the population, not to increase it. Are only others supposed to make sacrifices?
- golergka 9y ago
  Less bullshit TED-speak would help too.

sulam 9y ago

It's not a strawman opposition when you see people you work with unable to re-enter the country, environmental leadership questioning the human role in global warming (or even the role of CO2 in warming!), members of organizations that openly identify with the Nazi movement as first tier advisors to the president, etc... This is not a strawman, this is real and it's worth fighting. So are the other things you mention, but everyone is free to pick their fight.

angersock 9y ago
Everyone is free to pick their fight, sure, but when people have accumulated great power there is great responsibility, no? And if these people come from a philosophical and cultural and political monoculture, I think it's reasonable to be suspicious about them. FWIW, I feel the same way about the energy execs and crooked politicians--except in the case of at least Trump, there is at least a mandate of government granted by the people that voted for him. Who, exactly, voted for these millionaires? Nobody.
- sulam 9y ago
  So if the next election goes the other way, you're going to be supportive of the Chris Saccas of the world and discount the Gary Cohns and Steven Bannons? (note I purposefully am picking two very divergent points of view from within the Trump administration who happen to be multimillionaires). At the end of the day, I personally care about actions and how they stack up against my personal ethical and moral compass. You are obviously free to use whatever method you want to decide if someone is doing good in the world. And yes, Sacca is free to spend his money however he likes. I also support Rebekah Mercer's right to spend her money on vicious attack ads. I don't have to respect her for it -- regardless of who won the election -- and you don't have to respect Chris Sacca. Regarding monocultures -- circumscribe a set tightly enough and everyone comes from a monoculture. I don't think Sacca is any less exposed to divergent viewpoints than the Mercer's are, to use a relevant example. And finally, just to respond to your overarching argument that Sacca has some responsibility to use his money in a particular way. He may believe so, and that wouldn't make it any more your business how he does it. And if he chooses to spend it on wine, art, and yacht collecting because that's what he wants to do with it we can both believe he can do better (Larry Ellison, if you're reading this: you can do better) -- but the society we live in hasn't made us the arbiters of good billionaire behavior, more's the pity. :)
  - angersock 9y ago
    So, if Bannon and Cohn were to go and start rabble-rousing about the "resistance" and the "despotic democrats" (and Lord knows folks did plenty of that when Obama took office), I'd be similarly annoyed. My overarching argument is not quite that Sacca has a responsibility to use his money in a particular way--it's more that I find it distressing that powerful people (that arguably should know better) seem to have gotten caught up in the zeitgeist of the times and aren't being more conservative (in the "wait, let's stop and think about what we're actually advocating and how that could play out") and open-minded (in the "wait, maybe these other points of view are simply different and not always wrong"). I feel the same way about folks on the other side--they just tend not to show up on HN as much.
- s73ver 9y ago
  "except in the case of at least Trump, there is at least a mandate of government granted by the people that voted for him." More people voted for Not Trump than voted for Trump.

Thrillington 9y ago

With most people, I'd agree with you that local engagement would be more effective. Doubly so in the homeless hating bay area. However, Chris' access to capital, which equates to power in America, makes it more successful for him to fight on the federal level. trump in the white house has emboldened local behavior that threatens our education/healthcare systems, the homeless and countless other social safety net related issues. There are plenty of us left who can bring the fight on the local level. I'm coming around to the idea that winning the larger fights is also important. I've not heard of Chris Sacca before reading this article. He appears to be that rare person with an understanding of the social obligations of wealth and the means to build some larger communities around that.

angersock 9y ago
I'm unconvinced that somebody who made their money in many cases exploiting the little guy ( https://lowercasecapital.com/posse/ https://lowercasecapital.com/posse/ ) is suddenly finding religion here in any meaningful way. Action at the large levels is remote and indistinct, and boils down to status signalling and rich people games. Paying for housing and food and shelter and schooling and grants and libraries and hospitals goes a hell of a lot farther...just see the good works of Carnegie and Kaiser, to name two. Here's an interesting read you may enjoy along similar lines: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/how-democrats-killed-their-populist-soul/504710/?single_page=true https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/how-dem...

hsod 9y ago

Your criticism here is that he expressed his opposition to Trump with too much "melodrama"? That's pretty weak. Sometimes dramatic things happen. Sometimes dramatic language is warranted.

jamespo 9y ago

Your argument is just the fallacy of relative privation "why are you worrying about X when Y?" Different things concern different people.

rconti 9y ago

Yes, at the margins, EVERYTHING a President does will hurt people, cost lives, etc. One can only hope that, on balance, their decisions are beneficial rather than negative. In that sense, you can look for (and find!) outrage or great success in any person with such a weighty job. For that reason, I don't disagree that there's a lot wrong at the local level, and in many ways any action you could personally take would be better taken at such a level where you can create real impact. That said, I'm not sure it's at all melodramatic when you consider the tone that the "leader of the free world" sets in terms of what's socially acceptable, how to treat others, and so on. And I don't mean in the sense of "oh, anti-Semitic attacks are up 13.5%!" -- there is SO much that can be fudged in compiling this kind of data. I mean more in the sense of "suddenly it's acceptable to be an unrepentant outright liar every hour of the day, and people will not just look past it, but literally disbelieve their own ears."

anoonmoose 9y ago

The three local things you mentioned are all gonna get worse as a result of that "despotic regime", so...yeah.

angersock 9y ago
Probably. Then again, how much progress did SF make on homelessness under Obama?

oever 9y ago

Sacca is 'raising three wonderful kids' and 'passionate about solving our climate disaster'. The first thing to do to help climate change is to avoid reduce the population, not to increase it. Are only others supposed to make sacrifices?

golergka 9y ago
Less bullshit TED-speak would help too.