6 ms·

I feel like we're living in different universes. -You seem to say diversity is good, but not diversity of political thought? -What are Thiels stances on equal

I feel like we're living in different universes. -You seem to say diversity is good, but not diversity of political thought? -What are Thiels stances on equality that you see as so abhorrent? -He was involved (as a financier) of a lawsuit... I struggle to see the huge moral deal here. He didn't decide the outcome - six jurors did, abiding by the laws, in a court![1] -Is being a strong supporter of Ayn Rand a good reason that someone shouldn't be involved in Silicon Valley? [1]http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/gawker-trial-jurors-made-absolutely-correct-decision-awarding/story?id=37887552 http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/gawker-trial-jurors-made...

moomin 9y ago
It’s funny the way that supporters of Ayn Rand always seem to be keen on using the courts to get their way on things unrelated to their business. Just like John Galt. And diversity of thought is for new interesting ideas, not discredited old ones.
- Turing_Machine 9y ago
  "Discredited old ones" like, say, Marxism?
  - matt4077 9y ago
    That's actually an apt comparison, at least in regards to the prescriptive parts of Marx's writings. One remaining difference was that Marxism was at least well-intentioned, whereas Ayn Rand basically turned enjoyment of other's suffering into a philosophy. And, luckily, it seems we will be spared any attempts to implement Randian cruelty, since it has turned from an actual political force to no more than many people's college embarrassment, even in SV.
    - splintercell 9y ago
      > One remaining difference was that Marxism was at least well-intentioned, whereas Ayn Rand basically turned enjoyment of other's suffering into a philosophy. Irrespective of what you think she said, her core point was that "If a man lives for anyone but himself, he will be a deeply, deeply sad man". Ayn Rand herself get that question asked to her whenever she did something which your misconception about her idea would lead you to believe that it should be a contradiction by her philosophy to act in such a way. For instance she supported her husband's art venture for a while, and the interviewer asks her why would she do that, and she explains the same thing. [1] Clearing of this misconception DOES NOT mean that you agree with her, I'm just saying that your point of disagreement isn't what you think it is. Her philosophy doesn't think (which was made clear in Galt's speech) that a mother buying food for her kids by forgoing to not buy a fancy hat for herself is a 'sacrifice'. She values her children's wellbeing more than the hat. The problem also does not come in when Bill Gates gives up majority of his wealth to a charity as long as he truly does want to do that. The problem comes in when society takes 99% of these 'non-sacrificial actions', creates a moral scale out of it and asks everyone to follow it. It translates to two levels of action: Individual level: "I don't really want to become a doctor but my mom and dad would get upset if I didn't so I will". Societal level: "Sure you don't want to pay for poor people's healthcare because you'd rather buy an XBox, but you must make this sacrifice for society's sake". Rand's core philosophy of Objectivism says that both these paths to individual (like Peter Keating in Fountainhead) and societal unhappiness (like any socialist/communist society out there). 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQVrMzWtqgU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQVrMzWtqgU
    - Caveman_Coder 9y ago
      > "Ayn Rand basically turned enjoyment of other's suffering into a philosophy" I'm no Randian by any means, but I'd still treat her ideas honestly. By your statement, you either haven't read her works, don't understand them, or understand them and you are simply being dishonest in your representation of them. In any case, her philosophy, whether it is correct or not, is not one that "turned enjoyment of other's suffering into a philosophy." It turns out you can treat her Objectivist philosophy like any other philosophy and actually attack the premises of her arguments. Disagree with her supposed solution to the "is-ought" problem, fine, present an argument against it...in my opinion, that is a much better route to take than completely misrepresenting her philosophy.
    - Turing_Machine 9y ago
      "One remaining difference was that Marxism was at least well-intentioned" Well, it claims to be. Others would say it's a stalking horse for grabbing power over other people. Given the 100 million plus victims, I'd say that the latter is more likely to be the case.
  - deong 9y ago
    Yes, like Marxism. Which is why no one is actually advocating for Marxism.
  - CuriouslyC 9y ago
    Happiness as a function of money/power/etc is a logarithmic function. Given that there is a finite amount of these things to distribute among a given number of people, the distribution that will maximize total happiness of the population is one where everyone is equal. That isn't theory, that's fact, with mountains of evidence. Marxism is the strawman that the right wheels out to try and push back against policies that encourage equality. Equality doesn't equal marxism, proving marxism won't work doesn't prove that policies for equality won't work. One point I concede to conservatives is that being too strict about equality dampens personal autonomy (which is very important to happiness) and reduces incentives to innovate. A balance must be found. I should note that happiness from autonomy follows an inverted U curve, where too much autonomy (e.g. too many choices) causes just as much unhappiness as too little. Additionally, many extremely wealthy people don't spend in proportion to their earnings, the money is just their score in the game of capitalism, so redistributing more of their earnings doesn't materially affect them as long as you are doing the same thing to their competitors. Based on these facts, I believe that the autonomy/equality balance is currently very sub-optimal in terms of happiness.
    - Turing_Machine 9y ago
      "Given that there is a finite amount of these things to distribute among a given number of people, the distribution that will maximize total happiness of the population is one where everyone is equal. That isn't theory, that's fact, with mountains of evidence." "Evidence" like, say, North Korea? Cambodia under Pol Pot? The Soviet Union under Stalin? Maoist China? Heck, people are so happy with the equality in Cuba that they'll cross shark-infested waters in rafts they've made of trash bags stuffed with styrofoam packing peanuts. I think your "fact" is not supported by the...err...facts.
      - CuriouslyC 9y ago
        It isn't me you have to contend with, it's math, and the real world data on the correlation between wealth and happiness. Your right wing strawmen aren't going to be of much use there, I'm afraid.
- dictum 9y ago
  Your first point, while a good observation on the hypocrisy of Objectivists, is also a facile argument akin to when people can't criticize (something|a philosophy|a phenomenon), or some part of that thing, because they benefit from certain aspects of it. The second point is just bad – judge a thought on its own merits and implications, not fashionability or novelty.
anon1385 9y ago
>-What are Thiels stances on equality that you see as so abhorrent? He's a white supremacist. https://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/heres-how-breitbart-and-milo-smuggled-white-nationalism https://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/heres-how-breitbart... >In an email exchange shortly after the election, Yarvin told Yiannopoulos that he had been “coaching Thiel.” >“Peter needs guidance on politics for sure,” Yiannopoulos responded. >“Less than you might think!” Yarvin wrote back. “I watched the election at his house, I think my hangover lasted into Tuesday. He’s fully enlightened, just plays it very carefully.”
- wrren 9y ago
  That's hardly definitive. People really should be more careful about throwing around these extreme labels; it completely dilutes their impact when you apply them on a whim.
  - anon1385 9y ago
    Sure, it's second hand information, and the author may have had reasons to play up Thiel's dedication to the cause. But still, when white nationalists are calling him "fully enlightened" and having meetings with him it certainly suggests at best a willingness to work with an assist white nationalists to achieve his aims, which is bad enough.
    - wrren 9y ago
      Is Milo a white nationalist? I always thought he was just the Breitbart court jester. In any case, I don't agree with just discarding nuance in these discussions; "fully enlightened" could mean anything from his libertarianism to his support of Trump as a candidate. Unless Thiel, or anyone else really, comes out with some statement on the superiority of whites or the need to get rid of non-whites, let's desist from rushing to slap these labels on them.
      - anon1385 9y ago
        >Is Milo a white nationalist? Yes >his support of Trump as a candidate. Unlikely, since he was public about that all along so it's not something that was a secret.
btown 9y ago
Someone who writes “The purpose of the rape crisis movement seems as much about vilifying men as about raising ‘awareness’,” and who says that apartheid was effective, is not someone whose views on equality should be emulated, regardless of their other activities and political leanings. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/21/peter-thiel-support-donald-trump-date-rape-book https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/21/peter-thi... https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/03/500569299/major-trump-backers-positive-comments-about-apartheid-stir-anger https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/03/50... EDIT: Updated post to summarize the links, as it seems that some people believe the very presence of conventional news sources to be a reason to disengage from a discussion.
- milankovic 9y ago
  What do you think you're actually achieving by posting leftist media sources?
  - jbooth 9y ago
    Attempting to call 'fake news' on actual journalism is why the right wing is such a total incoherent screeching mess these days. Don't be that guy. Be a better guy.
    - malvosenior 9y ago
      He didn't call them "fake news", he called them leftist media sources and that's a factual statement. The Guardian especially is anything but a neutral source.
      - anon1385 9y ago
        The Guardian isn't leftist. It's a centrist/liberal publication. Those are very different things. (They also publish opinion pieces from other positions/ideologies, but that's a part of the whole liberal free market of ideas thing.)
milankovic 9y ago
Why even bother? All this comment you've replied to actually does is prove Thiel's point. It still amazes me that the irony is so lost on them..
- erispoe 9y ago
  That's not irony, that's the paradox of tolerance [1]. An open society can tolerate all opinions except for opinions directed against an open society. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- tuna-piano 9y ago
  Haha. Peter Thiel - "People here don't accept conservative ideas" Commentor - "I love diversity, but get the hell out with those opinions!" ... Obviously there are some opinions I find abhorrent and wouldn't want to be associated with (Nazis, etc). However, I think both that I'm more tolerant of offensive opinions than the commentor, and that I also find really nothing very offensive about what I've read about Thiel. Thiel doesn't seem that far right to me, and has been ostracized. But is any thought too far-left to be accepted in SV? You can support Venezuelan policies, Cuban policies, taxing rich people 90%, racism against whites and asians... and no one's trying to kick them out of civil society.
  - andrewprock 9y ago
    Your list of straw-men is incredible. I'm certain I can find active criticism from Silicon Valley regarding all of those topics.
    - tuna-piano 9y ago
      Yes, I think it's socially ok to criticize the extreme left (all my examples were extreme left positions). I do not think it's socially ok in SV to be more than a little conservative. After all, companies Thiel was associated with were pressured to kick him out just for the fact that he supported a candidate that was voted for by ~50% of the country! Maybe that's because of Trump's other non-political characteristics, but I'm not so sure.
CaptainZapp 9y ago
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. http://www.azquotes.com/quote/597528 http://www.azquotes.com/quote/597528
JoeNr76 9y ago
How are you going to bring about diversity of political thought? Quotas? Positive discrimination? Stiffing liberal political speech? The marketplace of ideas is against you: deal with it, or turn to 'liberal' solutions :p
- humanrebar 9y ago
  How about actual open mindedness, grace, and rational discourse? Everything doesn't have to be about rules and legislation. Let people be wrong but still humans sometimes. Sometimes is feels like we're in a neopuritan age, complete with analogs to The Crucible and The Scarlet Letter, but the new sins are sins of thought and speech, not the occult or sex.
  - JoeNr76 9y ago
    Well, open mindedness needs to come from both sides. Being told you're wrong is still part of rational discourse. Conservatives are just not used to be argued with, that's the problem.
samstave 9y ago
I am completely ignorant on things relating to Peter, so I have some questions: Is he a dramatic diva, or a pragmatic type? Is he moving to LA for lifestyle reasons or business reasons? What is his “next big thing”
pron 9y ago
> You seem to say diversity is good, but not diversity of political thought? Encouraging diversity is a means of letting those who have been marginalized from positions of power for centuries have a seat at the table. Are there similarly marginalized political opinions? I don't think Thiel or others who think like him are in short supply of power. The idea that conservative political opinions are suppressed is so ridiculous, especially as Thiel's party is in control of all branches of the federal US government and in most states. It is perfectly reasonable to have a local imbalance of opinion as long as in general power is not withheld for one side.

moomin 9y ago

It’s funny the way that supporters of Ayn Rand always seem to be keen on using the courts to get their way on things unrelated to their business. Just like John Galt. And diversity of thought is for new interesting ideas, not discredited old ones.

Turing_Machine 9y ago
"Discredited old ones" like, say, Marxism?
- matt4077 9y ago
  That's actually an apt comparison, at least in regards to the prescriptive parts of Marx's writings. One remaining difference was that Marxism was at least well-intentioned, whereas Ayn Rand basically turned enjoyment of other's suffering into a philosophy. And, luckily, it seems we will be spared any attempts to implement Randian cruelty, since it has turned from an actual political force to no more than many people's college embarrassment, even in SV.
  - splintercell 9y ago
    > One remaining difference was that Marxism was at least well-intentioned, whereas Ayn Rand basically turned enjoyment of other's suffering into a philosophy. Irrespective of what you think she said, her core point was that "If a man lives for anyone but himself, he will be a deeply, deeply sad man". Ayn Rand herself get that question asked to her whenever she did something which your misconception about her idea would lead you to believe that it should be a contradiction by her philosophy to act in such a way. For instance she supported her husband's art venture for a while, and the interviewer asks her why would she do that, and she explains the same thing. [1] Clearing of this misconception DOES NOT mean that you agree with her, I'm just saying that your point of disagreement isn't what you think it is. Her philosophy doesn't think (which was made clear in Galt's speech) that a mother buying food for her kids by forgoing to not buy a fancy hat for herself is a 'sacrifice'. She values her children's wellbeing more than the hat. The problem also does not come in when Bill Gates gives up majority of his wealth to a charity as long as he truly does want to do that. The problem comes in when society takes 99% of these 'non-sacrificial actions', creates a moral scale out of it and asks everyone to follow it. It translates to two levels of action: Individual level: "I don't really want to become a doctor but my mom and dad would get upset if I didn't so I will". Societal level: "Sure you don't want to pay for poor people's healthcare because you'd rather buy an XBox, but you must make this sacrifice for society's sake". Rand's core philosophy of Objectivism says that both these paths to individual (like Peter Keating in Fountainhead) and societal unhappiness (like any socialist/communist society out there). 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQVrMzWtqgU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQVrMzWtqgU
  - Caveman_Coder 9y ago
    > "Ayn Rand basically turned enjoyment of other's suffering into a philosophy" I'm no Randian by any means, but I'd still treat her ideas honestly. By your statement, you either haven't read her works, don't understand them, or understand them and you are simply being dishonest in your representation of them. In any case, her philosophy, whether it is correct or not, is not one that "turned enjoyment of other's suffering into a philosophy." It turns out you can treat her Objectivist philosophy like any other philosophy and actually attack the premises of her arguments. Disagree with her supposed solution to the "is-ought" problem, fine, present an argument against it...in my opinion, that is a much better route to take than completely misrepresenting her philosophy.
  - Turing_Machine 9y ago
    "One remaining difference was that Marxism was at least well-intentioned" Well, it claims to be. Others would say it's a stalking horse for grabbing power over other people. Given the 100 million plus victims, I'd say that the latter is more likely to be the case.
- deong 9y ago
  Yes, like Marxism. Which is why no one is actually advocating for Marxism.
- CuriouslyC 9y ago
  Happiness as a function of money/power/etc is a logarithmic function. Given that there is a finite amount of these things to distribute among a given number of people, the distribution that will maximize total happiness of the population is one where everyone is equal. That isn't theory, that's fact, with mountains of evidence. Marxism is the strawman that the right wheels out to try and push back against policies that encourage equality. Equality doesn't equal marxism, proving marxism won't work doesn't prove that policies for equality won't work. One point I concede to conservatives is that being too strict about equality dampens personal autonomy (which is very important to happiness) and reduces incentives to innovate. A balance must be found. I should note that happiness from autonomy follows an inverted U curve, where too much autonomy (e.g. too many choices) causes just as much unhappiness as too little. Additionally, many extremely wealthy people don't spend in proportion to their earnings, the money is just their score in the game of capitalism, so redistributing more of their earnings doesn't materially affect them as long as you are doing the same thing to their competitors. Based on these facts, I believe that the autonomy/equality balance is currently very sub-optimal in terms of happiness.
  - Turing_Machine 9y ago
    "Given that there is a finite amount of these things to distribute among a given number of people, the distribution that will maximize total happiness of the population is one where everyone is equal. That isn't theory, that's fact, with mountains of evidence." "Evidence" like, say, North Korea? Cambodia under Pol Pot? The Soviet Union under Stalin? Maoist China? Heck, people are so happy with the equality in Cuba that they'll cross shark-infested waters in rafts they've made of trash bags stuffed with styrofoam packing peanuts. I think your "fact" is not supported by the...err...facts.
    - CuriouslyC 9y ago
      It isn't me you have to contend with, it's math, and the real world data on the correlation between wealth and happiness. Your right wing strawmen aren't going to be of much use there, I'm afraid.
dictum 9y ago
Your first point, while a good observation on the hypocrisy of Objectivists, is also a facile argument akin to when people can't criticize (something|a philosophy|a phenomenon), or some part of that thing, because they benefit from certain aspects of it. The second point is just bad – judge a thought on its own merits and implications, not fashionability or novelty.

anon1385 9y ago

>-What are Thiels stances on equality that you see as so abhorrent? He's a white supremacist. https://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/heres-how-breitbart-and-milo-smuggled-white-nationalism https://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/heres-how-breitbart... >In an email exchange shortly after the election, Yarvin told Yiannopoulos that he had been “coaching Thiel.” >“Peter needs guidance on politics for sure,” Yiannopoulos responded. >“Less than you might think!” Yarvin wrote back. “I watched the election at his house, I think my hangover lasted into Tuesday. He’s fully enlightened, just plays it very carefully.”

wrren 9y ago
That's hardly definitive. People really should be more careful about throwing around these extreme labels; it completely dilutes their impact when you apply them on a whim.
- anon1385 9y ago
  Sure, it's second hand information, and the author may have had reasons to play up Thiel's dedication to the cause. But still, when white nationalists are calling him "fully enlightened" and having meetings with him it certainly suggests at best a willingness to work with an assist white nationalists to achieve his aims, which is bad enough.
  - wrren 9y ago
    Is Milo a white nationalist? I always thought he was just the Breitbart court jester. In any case, I don't agree with just discarding nuance in these discussions; "fully enlightened" could mean anything from his libertarianism to his support of Trump as a candidate. Unless Thiel, or anyone else really, comes out with some statement on the superiority of whites or the need to get rid of non-whites, let's desist from rushing to slap these labels on them.
    - anon1385 9y ago
      >Is Milo a white nationalist? Yes >his support of Trump as a candidate. Unlikely, since he was public about that all along so it's not something that was a secret.

btown 9y ago

Someone who writes “The purpose of the rape crisis movement seems as much about vilifying men as about raising ‘awareness’,” and who says that apartheid was effective, is not someone whose views on equality should be emulated, regardless of their other activities and political leanings. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/21/peter-thiel-support-donald-trump-date-rape-book https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/21/peter-thi... https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/03/500569299/major-trump-backers-positive-comments-about-apartheid-stir-anger https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/03/50... EDIT: Updated post to summarize the links, as it seems that some people believe the very presence of conventional news sources to be a reason to disengage from a discussion.

milankovic 9y ago
What do you think you're actually achieving by posting leftist media sources?
- jbooth 9y ago
  Attempting to call 'fake news' on actual journalism is why the right wing is such a total incoherent screeching mess these days. Don't be that guy. Be a better guy.
  - malvosenior 9y ago
    He didn't call them "fake news", he called them leftist media sources and that's a factual statement. The Guardian especially is anything but a neutral source.
    - anon1385 9y ago
      The Guardian isn't leftist. It's a centrist/liberal publication. Those are very different things. (They also publish opinion pieces from other positions/ideologies, but that's a part of the whole liberal free market of ideas thing.)

milankovic 9y ago

Why even bother? All this comment you've replied to actually does is prove Thiel's point. It still amazes me that the irony is so lost on them..

erispoe 9y ago
That's not irony, that's the paradox of tolerance [1]. An open society can tolerate all opinions except for opinions directed against an open society. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
tuna-piano 9y ago
Haha. Peter Thiel - "People here don't accept conservative ideas" Commentor - "I love diversity, but get the hell out with those opinions!" ... Obviously there are some opinions I find abhorrent and wouldn't want to be associated with (Nazis, etc). However, I think both that I'm more tolerant of offensive opinions than the commentor, and that I also find really nothing very offensive about what I've read about Thiel. Thiel doesn't seem that far right to me, and has been ostracized. But is any thought too far-left to be accepted in SV? You can support Venezuelan policies, Cuban policies, taxing rich people 90%, racism against whites and asians... and no one's trying to kick them out of civil society.
- andrewprock 9y ago
  Your list of straw-men is incredible. I'm certain I can find active criticism from Silicon Valley regarding all of those topics.
  - tuna-piano 9y ago
    Yes, I think it's socially ok to criticize the extreme left (all my examples were extreme left positions). I do not think it's socially ok in SV to be more than a little conservative. After all, companies Thiel was associated with were pressured to kick him out just for the fact that he supported a candidate that was voted for by ~50% of the country! Maybe that's because of Trump's other non-political characteristics, but I'm not so sure.

CaptainZapp 9y ago

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. http://www.azquotes.com/quote/597528 http://www.azquotes.com/quote/597528

JoeNr76 9y ago

How are you going to bring about diversity of political thought? Quotas? Positive discrimination? Stiffing liberal political speech? The marketplace of ideas is against you: deal with it, or turn to 'liberal' solutions :p

humanrebar 9y ago
How about actual open mindedness, grace, and rational discourse? Everything doesn't have to be about rules and legislation. Let people be wrong but still humans sometimes. Sometimes is feels like we're in a neopuritan age, complete with analogs to The Crucible and The Scarlet Letter, but the new sins are sins of thought and speech, not the occult or sex.
- JoeNr76 9y ago
  Well, open mindedness needs to come from both sides. Being told you're wrong is still part of rational discourse. Conservatives are just not used to be argued with, that's the problem.

samstave 9y ago

I am completely ignorant on things relating to Peter, so I have some questions: Is he a dramatic diva, or a pragmatic type? Is he moving to LA for lifestyle reasons or business reasons? What is his “next big thing”

pron 9y ago

> You seem to say diversity is good, but not diversity of political thought? Encouraging diversity is a means of letting those who have been marginalized from positions of power for centuries have a seat at the table. Are there similarly marginalized political opinions? I don't think Thiel or others who think like him are in short supply of power. The idea that conservative political opinions are suppressed is so ridiculous, especially as Thiel's party is in control of all branches of the federal US government and in most states. It is perfectly reasonable to have a local imbalance of opinion as long as in general power is not withheld for one side.