8 ms·
Why Silicon Valley Billionaires Are Prepping for the Apocalypse in NZ (2018)
- natalyarostova 7y ago> he vengefully bankrupted a website because he didn’t like how they wrote about him. This is so uncharitable and dishonest. Sure it's technically true, but I think outing someones sexuality deserves to be noted as more than just 'didn't like how they wrote about him.'
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- intopieces 7y agoThe usual concern about outing someone's sexuality is the impact it might have on their personal safety or ability to obtain or maintain employment. Not in Thiel's case. There was no negative repercussion whatsoever -- the dude is super-villain rich. The bankrupting was just spite.
- jiveturkey 7y agoor perhaps it was making a stand on principle. for an ordinary person, outing can completely and thoroughly ruin their life. bankrupting them was a just desert.
- AlexandrB 7y agoOrdinary people are more likely to be outed by companies Thiel has invested in, like Facebook[1]. Interestingly, he has yet to sue Facebook “on principle”. [1] https://thinkprogress.org/facebook-privacy-policy-outs-lgbt-users-15241ec5461e/ https://thinkprogress.org/facebook-privacy-policy-outs-lgbt-...
- coldtea 7y agoI'm pretty sure if Gawker's expose was due to a "privacy glitch" (like here) and not a conscious effort, they wouldn't have suffered any consequences... Or does FB go out of its way to expose LBGT people for some profit of its own?
- powowow 7y agoIf Peter Thiel wants to pretend he cares about privacy, he should shut down Clearview and Palantir.
- hello_friendos 7y agoAlso Thiel has a history to supporting anti-gay people. Like the anti-gay politicians who get outed, I don't have any sympathy for him and how he has harmed the community.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- rusk 7y agoHe gave the trump campaign a fairly sizable and timely donation. Not saying Trump is homophobic or anything ... EDIT https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/16/technology/peter-thiel-donald-j-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/16/technology/peter-thiel-do... $1.25M is fairly sizable 2 weeks before the election is timely For sure Trump is probably indifferent to sexuality, but his voters are not.
- coldtea 7y ago>For sure Trump is probably indifferent to sexuality, but his voters are not. Trump is also for X other things one might agree with and Y they might disagree. People vote wholesale, not on individual matters, so other attributes might matter more to Thiel (or any voter). And similarly, X or Y pros or cons on the other side might also matter more (negatively in this case). Besides, if Trump is indifferent to sexuality, what's the argument? Not to give his supporters (some of which might not be) the pleasure of seeing their candidate becoming president?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- tomcam 7y agocan you give an example of his support of anti-gay people?
- influx 7y agoTo clarify, you are ok with outing LGBTQ folks as long as there is no discernible repercussions?
- ajross 7y agoI don't think anyone would claim that. To flip the strawman: are you OK with any feasible retaliation for such an outing, no matter the repercussions? It's not inconsistent to think that Gawker was a bad site which did a bad thing for which they should be punished and that suing them into oblivion was a worse thing with worse effects for society.
- coldtea 7y ago>are you OK with any feasible retaliation for such an outing, no matter the repercussions? No, but I'm OK with suing them to bankruptcy.
- ajross 7y agoYeah, sure you are, just keep saying that when The Globalists come for Sinclair or whoever for doing nothing but printing one offensive truth. You don't actually think that, you just fooled yourself because you considered Gawker your enemy. [1] To repeat: what Gawker did was awful. But silencing the whole organization for one sin is not what you want.
- djannzjkzxn 7y agoPersonally I’m not “ok” with it, but I don’t think it’s much different than many other things that get reported about public figures. So many stories have been written about folks’ sexuality in gossip rags over the years. The reaction in this particular case was bizarre.
- powowow 7y agoTo clarify, you are ok with billionaires having the ability to use the legal system to destroy any organization they personally dislike?
- 1996 7y agoPeople do things - sometimes good, sometimes not good. But him using his money to take down a website that thought it was ok to out people? I never heard about it before, but I find that damn cool. That's not super-villain rich but Batman-level good.
- tomcam 7y ago> There was no negative repercussion whatsoever How do you know without mind reading?
- intopieces 7y agoWell, he's buying land the size of Manhattan in NZ to build an apocalypse compound. [0] I'm no mind-reader, but he seems to have come out OK. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/feb/15/why-silicon-valley-billionaires-are-prepping-for-the-apocalypse-in-new-zealand https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/feb/15/why-silicon-val...
- tomcam 7y agoDoes that mean he’s had no repercussions? I don’t see the connection.
- SmirkingRevenge 7y agoGawker went bankrupt because of the damages awarded to Hulk Hogan by a judge in a legitimate lawsuit. Thiel wasn't a plaintiff in the case - he paid for Hogan's defense. I'm sure that money helped Hogan mount the best case possible, but it didn't determine the outcome of the trial.
- threatofrain 7y agoKnowing that somebody is gay could also change how they might be received by an entire community, such as a church community that cares about child-rearing. A church might simply feel that a homosexual is not sexually safe around children, and it's not really an outsider's place to tell how people should run their own church. But why should Peter Thiel absorb these blows for nothing? And his response? To fund somebody in a civil claim, because Gawker was depending on the fact that people are too weak to sue them. Gawker gambled wrong. The sad part isn't that Peter Thiel could choose which horse to back -- the sad part is that you need a financial backer to get justice.
- mam2 7y agoThat's not really to you to decide why someone want to keep his sexuality a secret. His family could hate him. You can see it the other way: why would gawker reveal this if not to cause a but of malice.
- coldtea 7y ago>The usual concern about outing someone's sexuality is the impact it might have on their personal safety or ability to obtain or maintain employment. It's also privacy, basic human decency, and their choice to disclose or not, which are just as important. You can't just shit on them because someone is "super-rich" and wont lose their job.
- sdinsn 7y agoAlso it's important to note that he financial supported a case that deserved to win. Gawker did a terrible thing to Hogan.
- iron0013 7y agoIt’s so funny to me that when it comes to whether YouTube or Facebook or whoever should be forced to host hate speech on their servers, the HN zeitgeist shouts “Platforms! Publishers! The right to free speech is absolute in all contexts—it’s the principle of the thing!” But then Gawker says something that one of HN’s favorite billionaires doesn’t like...
- pmoriarty 7y agoHave you considered that these are different people holding different opinions?
- ephextom 7y agoNot really even technically true. He didn't do anything about it for at least 3-4 years after the outing, and was personally content to live and let live. He only took action after being persuaded by someone else that he had a responsibility to fight back in defence of the countless people, most of whom were vastly less powerful than Thiel, that Gawker's business was built on attacking. Full story: https://www.amazon.com/Conspiracy-Peter-Gawker-Anatomy-Intrigue-ebook/dp/B07637TDJJ https://www.amazon.com/Conspiracy-Peter-Gawker-Anatomy-Intri...
- 1996 7y agoBecause above the Maslow pyramid, there's some insanity zone Seriously: people with too much money quickly get surrounded with yes men, who act as an echo chamber for these persons fears, and deliver them the white elephants they want. An apocalypse is very unlikely. But yeah, have this sweet NZ bunker. It's good for the local economy I guess? Now they have their nice bunkers, I hope they start fearing death more, and invest in anti senescence research. This could benefit a lot of people besides NZ local economy.
- wslh 7y ago> Because above the Maslow pyramid, there's some insanity zone Many times this insanity is about feeling like a king (today billionaires are the kings of kings) or feeling like gods.
- foogazi 7y ago> I hope they start fearing death more, and invest in anti senescence research Aren’t Larry and Sergey already investing in this via Alphabet?
- 1996 7y agoNot enough. I hope more billionaires start seriously investing when they turn 40 or 50 or 60 and realize the clock is ticking. And by seriously, I mean spending over 50% of what they have - when they realize that if death happens, all they have accumulated will not matter. Better spend that on increasing their lifespan that on kids!
- rconti 7y ago"Because they have run out of things to do with their money"
- goatinaboat 7y agoBetter make sure there’s a nice place in the bunker for your pilot and his family...
- leroy_masochist 7y agoI wish the author had spent more time dissecting the actual merits of the Sovereign Individual thesis and why SV billionaires find it credible, and less time hurling bilious invective at Thiel. Also, his summary of the whole Gawker affair is absurdly skewed -- Gawker was a terrible website that used the protections of our free society to ruin people's lives, and Thiel used our free society's libel laws to bankrupt it. He played by the rules and won in that case.
- selimthegrim 7y agoAnti barratry/champerty statutes went away because people were harassing the NAACP, not because we wanted to enable any rich guy squashing people saying things he doesn’t like about him. What next? UK libel laws? The class system all over again?
- sdinsn 7y agoSo are you claiming that Gawker had the right to distribute Hogan's sex tape?
- selimthegrim 7y agoCouldn’t Hogan have funded his lawsuit with whatever the final Gawker offer was Thiel rejected?
- misiti3780 7y agoHas anyone read this book referenced: https://www.amazon.com/Sovereign-Individual-Survive-Collapse-Welfare/product-reviews/0684810077 https://www.amazon.com/Sovereign-Individual-Survive-Collapse...
- bordercases 7y agoOne of those texts way ahead of its time. It's not too late! You can still anticipate plot details while watching!
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- johnnycab 7y agoYou might want to consider a short primer before delving into any works of Rees-Mogg. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/nov/09/mystic-mogg-jacob-rees-mogg-willam-predicts-brexit-plans https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/nov/09/mystic-mogg-ja...
- buboard 7y agothe second edition is coming out soon https://www.amazon.com/Sovereign-Individual-James-Dale-Davidson-ebook/dp/B00AK9IXXM/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=The+Sovereign+Individual%3A&qid=1579545312&s=books&sr=1-1 https://www.amazon.com/Sovereign-Individual-James-Dale-David...
- m3kw9 7y agoThere is probably one of many many apocalypse scenario where being in New Zealand would work out.
- te_chris 7y agoIs there a better argument for a land tax in NZ?
- williesleg 7y agoGreat, after they finish fucking up California they'll work on New Zealand.
- throwaway5752 7y agoI pity some of the ultra rich. Personal paranoias and neuroticisms like this can be indulged. Most involve loss of money or life, so you have quacks selling life-extending treatments, bunkers for when society collapses, and so on. I don't see many people point this out, but societal collapse would be gradual, and there will be no safe haven. Plenty of people with boats will be able to make it to NZ, and money loses value outside of the societal structure that allows it to be traded for goods (you will not sell your food in a famine for any amount of money). The only way out is to prevent the collapse in the first place.
- LifeLiverTransp 7y agoAll it needs is one vengefull nuclear submarine crew - and kabloom- prepped to be snapped.
- AtlasBarfed 7y agoIt's the usual Atlas Shrugged secret canyon pipe dream by the ultrarich. Of courses that canyon was an imaginary sexual paradise of Ayn Rand and 100 millionaires, a strangely feminist construct for the bible of the idiot right. Like if the collapse happens, the idiot rich will be doing all the work that they used to pay people with? What will they pay people with? Bitcoin? Zeroes in a nonexistent computer system? Gold?
- buboard 7y agoi dont know why the focus on Thiel, it's not like he s the sole libertarian in the world , and the idea that maximum freedom and democracy are not compatible is not uncommon among libertarians. even some democrats circa 2016 would agree