4 ms·

I find Ryan Holiday to be pretty annoying as a marketer, I used to be on his email list for book recs but I got frustrated when the vast majority of his recs we

I find Ryan Holiday to be pretty annoying as a marketer, I used to be on his email list for book recs but I got frustrated when the vast majority of his recs were books written by white men (I dont have an issue with books written by white men, but I do see it as a red flag when someone only really consumes content from one perspective). But I did find "Trust Me, I'm Lying" to be a fascinating look into how to fake a grass roots campaign and create the illusion of virality (basically a step by step guide to fake it till you make it). I also found his book on Peter Thiel/the Hulk Hogan case (Conspiracy) to be a really interesting look into a lawsuit with pretty major implications for the future of journalism. Although his musings on Thiel's motives/morality/approach seemed to overlook the idea that maybe there just shouldnt be billionaires. Overall I would say he has interesting insights on specific situations but in general his thinking is fairly unimaginative/limited to manipulating the current system without actually questioning underlying assumptions.

samatman 5y ago
msla 5y ago
I find people's opinions on Thiel to be an interesting litmus test: Seeing him as morally bad is one thing, and thinking there shouldn't be billionaires is a reasonable view, but if someone absolutely cannot or will not see that he was the wronged party when Gawker outed him without his consent while he was in a country hostile to LGBTQ+ people, they're morally blinkered at the very least. People who judge the morality of an action based on characteristics of the people involved have replaced their moral sense with tribal affiliation. That, or they're immature black-and-white thinkers who cannot understand that even someone who is generally bad can be on the right side of a specific issue.
- human_person 5y ago
  I agree, what Gawker did was wrong. But being wronged once doesnt excuse Thiel's actions. And (more importantly imo) the larger issue is -- are you comfortable with a random person having enough money/power to threaten freedom of the press? Also Thiel is far from the only person to be outed, the only difference is his reaction/how much money he has. Do you think its equally wrong that Wired outed Naomi Wu while she lives in a country hostile to LGBTQ+ people? Have you read Conspiracy?
  - msla 5y ago
    > And (more importantly imo) the larger issue is -- are you comfortable with a random person having enough money/power to threaten freedom of the press? OK, let's see if we agree on the basic timeline: 1. Gawker outed Thiel. 2. Gawker released the Hulk Hogan sex tape. 3. Thiel funded Hulk Hogan's lawsuit against Gawker. 4. Gawker lost the lawsuit. Is that accurate? If it is, the problem isn't that Thiel funded the lawsuit, the problem is that Hulk Hogan needed Thiel to fund the lawsuit for him to prevail in court and get justice for the wrong Gawker did to him. I'm for taxing billionaires. I'm also for privacy and people being protected against paparazzi. Those things don't come into conflict unless someone sees a billionaire funding lawsuits based on the right to privacy and decides that anything a billionaire does must be wrong, prima facie. > Do you think its equally wrong that Wired outed Naomi Wu while she lives in a country hostile to LGBTQ+ people? Yes. > Have you read Conspiracy? No.

samatman 5y ago

msla 5y ago

I find people's opinions on Thiel to be an interesting litmus test: Seeing him as morally bad is one thing, and thinking there shouldn't be billionaires is a reasonable view, but if someone absolutely cannot or will not see that he was the wronged party when Gawker outed him without his consent while he was in a country hostile to LGBTQ+ people, they're morally blinkered at the very least. People who judge the morality of an action based on characteristics of the people involved have replaced their moral sense with tribal affiliation. That, or they're immature black-and-white thinkers who cannot understand that even someone who is generally bad can be on the right side of a specific issue.

human_person 5y ago
I agree, what Gawker did was wrong. But being wronged once doesnt excuse Thiel's actions. And (more importantly imo) the larger issue is -- are you comfortable with a random person having enough money/power to threaten freedom of the press? Also Thiel is far from the only person to be outed, the only difference is his reaction/how much money he has. Do you think its equally wrong that Wired outed Naomi Wu while she lives in a country hostile to LGBTQ+ people? Have you read Conspiracy?
- msla 5y ago
  > And (more importantly imo) the larger issue is -- are you comfortable with a random person having enough money/power to threaten freedom of the press? OK, let's see if we agree on the basic timeline: 1. Gawker outed Thiel. 2. Gawker released the Hulk Hogan sex tape. 3. Thiel funded Hulk Hogan's lawsuit against Gawker. 4. Gawker lost the lawsuit. Is that accurate? If it is, the problem isn't that Thiel funded the lawsuit, the problem is that Hulk Hogan needed Thiel to fund the lawsuit for him to prevail in court and get justice for the wrong Gawker did to him. I'm for taxing billionaires. I'm also for privacy and people being protected against paparazzi. Those things don't come into conflict unless someone sees a billionaire funding lawsuits based on the right to privacy and decides that anything a billionaire does must be wrong, prima facie. > Do you think its equally wrong that Wired outed Naomi Wu while she lives in a country hostile to LGBTQ+ people? Yes. > Have you read Conspiracy? No.