14 ms·

I, for one, applaud FB's decision to keep him on the board. A lot has been said about this already, but it's true that Silicon Valley is an echo chamber that te

• radicaldreamer 9y ago
  Does Silicon Valley really push out dissenting opinions? There seem to be plenty of people with very out of the mainstream and quirky opinions who have thrived in the valley for years and plenty of obnoxious people who try to emulate them by having dissenting opinions for the sake of having a dissenting opinion.
  • yosho 9y ago
    The James Damore Google manifesto and the Youtube creator demonetization censorship comes to mind right now. Granted that's only one company, Google, but I think there's a general feeling that if you're not on the left leaning political spectrum, you're going to have your opinions shuttered.
    • gameswithgo 9y ago
      Google has also fired two liberal employees for being insufferable (that are known/public). So perhaps it is more a case of Google firing insufferable people rather than particular views.
      • rapsey 9y ago
        No account of events leading to Demores firing portrayed him as insufferable.
        • keo92znx 9y ago
          His manifesto alone paints such a picture. No anecdotes from others necessary. One coder with no unique personal success outside being hireable by Google painting the majority of the species as lesser, with cherry picked stats that ignore human history and social trends? Edit: I don’t care about what numbers he put in his memo. It’s the idea of peddling such a thing in the first place by someone who has no authority Saying math says we should behave a certain way is enabling authoritarian rule, IMO Demore forgets that he’s one of billions. He can think what he wants using his numbers, but it’s not iron clad and means nothing given that the data is generated in a highly curated social structure It’s less “his math is off” and more “why do I care who this Demore fellow is? Because he has math? Meh lots of people do. It’s not very interesting math and theory.” That’s not likely to connect with this crowd. Pretty self-aggrandizing and full of shit, IMO. Not something a “place of business” as Google has painted itself in these situations, should support
          • MadSudaca 9y ago
            maybe you should read the memo
          • rapsey 9y ago
            > painting the majority of the species as lesser, He did that? Where?
            • keo92znx 9y ago
              He made comments outside his paper that women just aren’t as good at men or more of them would find satisfaction in this I’m not linking it because it’s not like this is an esoteric notion that requires extreme vetting It’s one a-hole who in the big picture isn’t important to anyone but himself. Something I think this forum and society as a whole have lost sight of I have my own take on it. Add some variables he excluded and his whole thesis goes to shit. But it still says nothing but math is like English; it can be made to produce a result that tells whatever story we want Some folks seem to think every formula peddles some inherent truth of reality, which is nonsense
    • threatofrain 9y ago
      What ties James Damore to positions or values of conservatism, other than him saying so? What core conservative value or worldview is at play here?
      • Consultant32452 9y ago
        I suspect the worldview difference is individualism vs collectivism.
        • threatofrain 9y ago
          I thought it was the view that women and men were different, and that an embrace of that fact would reveal askew sex ratios for different occupations. Also, what group claims individualism as their value? Liberals or conservatives? I suspect many people would say they are pro individual freedom and rights when framed as individualism vs collectivism. Also, do conservatives champion individualism or community?
        • api 9y ago
          That isn't the operating dichotomy anymore. Most modern conservatives are collectivists. Nationalism, racial identity movements, and religious traditionalism are all to varying degrees collectivist. Any talk of saving our culture, race, etc. is collectivist.
    • dsfyu404ed 9y ago
      I don't think it's a direct intolerance of other opinions because they're not the same but because they're not capable of coexistent in a "we know our beliefs are right and therefore anything incompatible with our beliefs is wrong" sort of way. Look at the comments in here on any article about something that's vaguely political or a social issue in a flyover state, rural are or "less developed" country. There's this weird implication of slight superiority. A lot of them often read with a sort of pro colonialism white mans's burden sort of tone. It's like everyone else isn't capable of figuring out their own problems and needs the smart people to rule them. There's also a sort of Christian missionary kind of undertone where everyone who doesn't believe like we do faces eternal damnation so it's our responsibility to get them to shun their existing beliefs and convert. It's not a malevolent intolerance, it's a saving you for your own good kind of intolerance. I can't quite put my finger on it (so I'm drawing parallels instead) but I don't like it.
      • stcredzero 9y ago
        I don't think it's a direct intolerance of other opinions because they're not the same Okay, so you don't have to have a bit-accurate copy. but because they're not capable of coexistent in a "we know our beliefs are right and therefore anything incompatible with our beliefs is wrong" sort of way. The above is pretty much a definition of intolerance.
        • dsfyu404ed 9y ago
          Yes, intolerance is intolerance. Being able to abstract away the intolerance and treat it as though it's just the result of being confronted by incompatible beliefs makes it easier to rationalize doing it because it makes it partly the result of other people having the "wrong" beliefs and therefore not wholly your fault.
          • stcredzero 9y ago
            It's funny how one's own intolerance is always "right" because the other people are always "wrong."
      • 9y ago
  • rayiner 9y ago
    It's notable that Thiel had right-leaning views for a long time, and it wasn't until he acted on them and helped elect Trump into office that anyone pushed back.
    • andriesm 9y ago
      Whats wrong with helping to elect Trump?
      • stcredzero 9y ago
        The same things that are "wrong" with donating money to the "wrong" PAC. Nothing. People should be praised for peacefully taking part in one of the longest standing and most successful democratic republics in history. It's people who try to gain acceptance of violence in US politics who should be condemned. It's people who try and strip away freedom of speech and assembly from others who should be condemned.
        • harryh 9y ago
          It's people who try and strip away freedom of speech and assembly from others who should be condemned. Like Donald Trump's harsh criticism of protesting NFL players or his near constant denigration of the free press? What about the people that helped elect this obviously unfit leader? There are plenty of ways to peacefully participate in democracy that I have no problem declaring "wrong."
          • stcredzero 9y ago
            Like Donald Trump's harsh criticism of protesting NFL players The whole point of free speech is to be able to express. The current president has always erred on the side of expressing too much, and I'd say that we'd be better off without most of his tweets, or him in office. However, none of that is opposing free speech. or his near constant denigration of the free press? The mainstream news media in its death throes is objectively bad. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qmiPWgCYb4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qmiPWgCYb4 https://www.theknifemedia.com/ https://www.theknifemedia.com/ There are plenty of ways to peacefully participate in democracy that I have no problem declaring "wrong." That sounds pretty authoritarian. The whole point of freedom is that we are able to be right or wrong. It's our choice. That's "the consent of the governed." Do I wish the election had gone differently? Yes. But simpleminded vilifying of almost 1/2 of the country isn't a constructive approach.
  • stcredzero 9y ago
    Does Silicon Valley really push out dissenting opinions? Yes. People will discover that you have nuanced views, then start to talk to basically warn you ominously, or send you home in a cab. People with power will leave you hanging, wondering if your life will be destroyed. There seem to be plenty of people with very out of the mainstream and quirky opinions who have thrived in the valley for years and plenty of obnoxious people who try to emulate them by having dissenting opinions for the sake of having a dissenting opinion. The problem isn't the obnoxious people. Obnoxious people thrive on their conflicts with each other. The problem is what happens to reasonable people. The problem is the intolerance of asking questions and of loyal opposition. The problem is that there's so much hostility towards honest inquiry. You're either with them or against them. I remember when the left was horrified at hearing a phrase like that from the Right. Now the Bay Area Left say it.
    • true_religion 9y ago
      I am curious for my own sake, what are some controversial views that you have heard?
      • deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• gizmo 9y ago
  The problem isn't that Thiel is contrarian, the problem is that many of his beliefs (e.g. women's suffrage being a mistake) make for a hostile work environment. You're not the first to reframe the issue to Thiel being simply a person who challenges conventional wisdom. As though all contrarians are alike and automatically beyond criticism.
  • randyrand 9y ago
    Not quite. His point is pretty simple: womans suffrage is a reason we are not as libertarian a country as before. Of course as a libertarian this makes him sad, but it does not imply it was a mistake - that was an assumption on your part. "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" Cato later updated the essay and Thiel clarified that he does not want to disenfranchise women: "While I don’t think any class of people should be disenfranchised, I have little hope that voting will make things better." IMO this belief about democracy should be way more controversial than essentially stating woman don't vote libertarian. Society needs to be a bit better at differentiating exploratory intellectual conversations from statements of belief. It shouldn't be so difficult to have reasoned discussions about controversial topics.
    • gizmo 9y ago
      His later clarification is a clear deflection. He laments women have the right to vote and he never retracted that statement.
      • randyrand 9y ago
        I'd argue that's an assumption. To your second point, he never retracted his original statement because he never said woman shouldn't vote. What statement would you like him to retract? For your sake he still clarified his beliefs "I don’t think any class of people should be disenfranchised".
• gameswithgo 9y ago
  Thiel has had plenty of interesting opinions and nobody faulted him for talking about them. When he helped elect a senile crazy person to be president though, that was just awful. Not something that challenges anyone's world view. Nobody has been enlightened by that process or by Trump.
  • wahern 9y ago
    The fact that he still unapologetically believes Trump was better than Clinton betrays his underlying thinking and his lack of commitment to reassessing his beliefs.
    • notMick 9y ago
      About half the country has the opposite opinion to you.
  • josegmiralles 9y ago
    It kind of seems to me that only reason for Thiel to back someone like Trump was because of the Palantir deal.
  • someone454 9y ago
    Sheesh, Hillary lost, so no, we didn’t get a senile crazy president.
• stephencanon 9y ago
  The argument for removing him isn't that he believes the "wrong things", it's that he actively worked to elect someone who acts in ways contrary to Facebook's stated goals ("give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together") and contrary to the well-being of portions of their employees and user base.
  • notMick 9y ago
    Perhaps Facebook should remove password/id checks to encourage open borders? communities doesn't mean access to improperly entering people. Try not to conflate the issue. Half of Facebook's users are (probably) conservative, that is half the user base. Still sound like you want your echo chamber.
  • AJ007 9y ago
    That argument could have equally been made for the other candidate.
    • stephencanon 9y ago
      That does not make it wrong. If you want to argue that a board member who gave a speech for Hillary at the DNC should also be removed, you can make that argument. To indulge you: what specific policy proposal did Hillary make and Trump oppose that would be harmful to Facebook employees or users, or contrary to Facebook's goals?
      • Consultant32452 9y ago
        Hillary seemed much more keen to bombing brown people while Trump mostly wanted to disrupt their travel plans. She was also much more hawkish specifically towards Russian allies and my biggest fear from her was kicking off WW3. Fwiw, I voted third party.
        • stephencanon 9y ago
          My best recollection is that neither one of them made any concrete proposal to significantly change the status quo on foreign wars. Trump did some handwaving, but no specific proposals. I could be misremembering, however.
• chasing 9y ago
  Not all "dissenting opinions" are equal. Some deserve to be pushed out.
  • stcredzero 9y ago
    Bad ideas deserve to be analyzed, argued against, and demolished. Bullying people into grudging silence isn't pushing out bad ideas. Rather, the history of such behavior is that it's a tactic for people to try and prop up bad ideas which can't stand on their own. When one finds oneself doubling down on an ideology with more acrimony and fervor, it's a clear sign that one is on the wrong side of history. When one is bullying others into agreement instead of convincing others, it's a clear sign that one is on the wrong side of history. When one must convince oneself that another's human rights are to be sacrificed for the greater good, one is on the wrong side of history. Good ideas stand on their own. Good ideas can convince.
    • SimbaOnSteroids 9y ago
      >Good ideas can convince. Assuming rational, non emotional, actors, which is hardly ever the case. People like Alex Jones have an audience, but bring a good argument to their feet, that say Sandy Hook wasn't a false flag, and you're unlikely to get a change in belief.
      • stcredzero 9y ago
        Assuming rational, non emotional, actors, which is hardly ever the case. That's the human condition. So many of us are fools. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWQEG5kP5uM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWQEG5kP5uM
    • chasing 9y ago
      If we all had infinite time and infinite energy we could hear out every bad idea, analyze it, argue against it, and demolish it. But we don't. So we sometimes just have to say, "Y'know what: It's a bad idea and we need to set it aside and put our energy into good ideas."