7 ms·

The article is an attack on Peter Thiel, not SVB. Also seems thin on facts, and just "SVB is getting bailed out, and hence some rich guy stays rich". Given th

The article is an attack on Peter Thiel, not SVB. Also seems thin on facts, and just "SVB is getting bailed out, and hence some rich guy stays rich". Given that both the Fed and the Bank of England have decades-old laws protecting the financial system long before (tech) billionaires, this article seems even more ridiculous. Context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Statesman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Statesman > Today, the magazine is a print–digital hybrid. According to its present self-description, it has a liberal and progressive political position.[3] Jason Cowley, the magazine's editor, has described the New Statesman as a publication "of the left, for the left"[4] but also as "a political and literary magazine" with "sceptical" politics.

waihtis 4y ago
[flagged]
- mateus1 4y ago
  So “tech bro” is a slur now? This seems a bit exaggerated
  - mc32 4y ago
    It’s become an acceptable way of saying “tech thug”. You don’t like someone in tech, you call them a tech bro. Bro by itself is neutral. You don’t like Bill Gates due to his unethical behavior? You call him a tech bro.
    - PM_me_your_math 4y ago
      But Gates doesn't look like a bro. He's more like a Tech Grandpa
      - mc32 4y ago
        Ok, in that light, we might call him a tech geezer.
    - Jcowell 4y ago
      lol. You don’t call someone a thug because you don’t like them. You call someone a thug because they possess the ability to do a potential harm. Tech bros is a term for men who’s life revolves around tech.
    - beepbooptheory 4y ago
      In America, Tech "bro" is clearly meant to reference fraternity culture, or at least a certain kind of male group. The guys who go on spring break and pound beers. That is, a particular kind of insulated and self-reinforcing culture that is distinctly masculine, and comes with all the presumption, chauvinism, and privilege that such a thing always entails. Not to mention treating everything with a somewhat short-term scope: so we get juicero, shitcoins, and now bank runs. Its all just binge drinking on a Sunday night before exams. I don't think the people who use this term are particularly worried about euphemism, the term is direct. Noone thinks Bill Gates is a tech bro, he is just the ealier vanguard and as such now more of a rolemodel.
      - mc32 4y ago
        I think the term you’re looking for is frat. Like a frat guy/boy, or a frat bro. Those are the guys who wanna go tear-assing during spring break. Tech bro borrows from there and applies it hamfistedly to guys who are more interested in making a quick buck, getting high on the newest go to drug, chad around, rip investors off if that’s what comes and live it up like there is no tomorrow, while the going's good. Most males in tech are not like that. His legacy is mixed, on the one hand he did democratize computing, on the other hand he had monopolistic tendencies. And now feeling guilt, he's trying to use his wealth for philanthropy to make up for his past transgressions.
        beepbooptheory 4y ago
        I don't want to come off snarky, but what exactly do you think you are adding here in your first paragraph? It sounds like you want to correct me, but don't really say anything different. I did not make a claim about most males, but your concern about the matter is noted I guess.
- GlacierFox 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - blahblah1234567 4y ago
    Found the ad-hominem
  - Kiro 4y ago
    What are you doing here if you hate tech so much?
    - komali2 4y ago
      Hating tech is one path to improving tech. How many startups have you worked at whose product was the result of the founder being pissed off about something and building a product to solve whatever was pissing them off? For me so far it's two out of four.
    - bena 4y ago
      You can like tech and not be a "tech bro".
- mc32 4y ago
  It’s in poor taste, at the least and leads to decreased credibility by slurring the subject rather than addressing it head on. If instead the headline had read tech hoes, to riff on urban subculture appropriated by pop TV, instead, people would also treat it accordingly. But this publication consciously decided to run with this headline. It certainly speaks to their bias, if nothing else. That said, these investors and founders who are fair weather libertarians deserve to be criticized, no doubt, but we can do so without banal insults. It's an article, for god's sake, not a random comment on some random blog or an instigating tweet.
_8j50 4y ago
Oh please. You know exactly what the article is saying. You chose to attack the publication instead of their arguments which boils down to Thiel and friends are very much anti-regulation and if it wasn't their money they would resist government interference. Perhaps you could talk about the quoted comments from those billionaires and correct the article?
- DrBazza 4y ago
  > Perhaps you could talk about the quoted comments All the quotes are barely one sentence, and with zero context, and no link back to when or where they were said. I know modern journalism is lazy and just quotes tweets, but the author could have put a bit more effort in. > when Zuckerberg came up with his mantra, “move fast and break things”, he didn’t just mean code. > Thiel himself is so committed to libertarianism that he has established an eponymous foundation to “defend and promote freedom” > Larry Page, the co-founder of Google, has previously suggested a “limit” on laws to “some set of pages”. “When you add a page, you have to take one away,” he said. > “This is an extinction level event,” warned Garry Tan, the CEO of Y Combinator. > “Where is [the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Jay] Powell? Where is [the Treasury secretary, Janet] Yellen? Stop this crisis NOW,” tweeted the venture capitalist David Sacks
  - nayroclade 4y ago
    The article assumes an audience sophisticated and informed enough not to require extensive evidence that Peter Thiel is a libertarian, or that he and associated VCs are generally opposed to government regulation, because those assumed to be established facts. The quotes aren't intended to prove these facts, simply to provide a flavour of the types of rhetoric and attitude they have historically displayed. So what exactly is your argument here? That Thiel and co. aren't libertarians? That they are generally pro-regulation and government bailouts? Or that the article's thesis is invalid simply because it didn't meet your standard of empirical representation, regardless of whether it's true or not?
  - nerdponx 4y ago
    The last one at least was literally just a Twitter post with no other context.
andrepd 4y ago
I don't know what your last paragraph is supposed to imply. That there shouldn't be outlets for the Left? That there shouldn't be outlets with stated political positions at all? Or it's just a basic ad hominem? Anyway, as for the substance: a bank had risky behaviour and lost out. Now everyone, including those who never did and never will benefit from that risk, are called to pick up the check. This is, objectively speaking, a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. Now you may justify that with trickle-down economics, but I'm not arguing that point, and neither is the writer. He is merely pointing out how the "leave free enterprise alone" crowd is now suddenly in favour of handouts :)
- PM_me_your_math 4y ago
  How does the "rich" steal what the poor do not have?
  - beepbooptheory 4y ago
    I think you meant to scare quote "steal," not rich. Otherwise this is a very elliptical argument.
- fidgewidge 4y ago
  > I don't know what your last paragraph is supposed to imply. It's pointing out that the left hates libertarianism and Peter Thiel, leftism is literally the opposite of libertarianism, and so you would expect a left wing news outlet to try and trash Thiel and libertarians whether or not the argument makes any sense or whether it's actually their fault. It's a bias warning.
  - panarchy 4y ago
    Not really though. It's worth pointing out that the original Liberartianism in the Sarte/French sense IS a left wing movement and closer to anarchism and would view the companies that American Libertarians love as another extension of authoritarian control that should be reduced or eliminated. Corporate Libertarianism which seems to be the predominant modern one is very right wing though.
enumjorge 4y ago
> The article is an attack on Peter Thiel, not SVB. I don’t understand this comment. The article doesn’t pretend to not be an attack on people like Thiel. It’s in the title. So what’s your point—is Thiel above criticism? And since you imply that a publication somehow automatically loses credibility on this topic by leaning left, here’s a Financial Times opinion piece with a similar premise: https://archive.is/6MBEL https://archive.is/6MBEL
- yucky 4y ago
  Not to speak for OP, but I think the point is obvious. Silicon Valley culture is liberal to progressive, not libertarian. That means more government intervention is the norm in the industry, not less. Thiel is more of an exception in that regard. The entire premise that Silicon Valley has a libertarian culture is flawed, which is they the article can't back it up.
  - toshredsyousay 4y ago
    So my understanding is Silicon Valley programmers have a liberal to progressive culture, but the VCs that fund tech companies have the reputation of being libertarian. Thiel at least a is a noted libertarian. The stereotype is that rich investors have these 'libertarian' ideals where they believe that, freed from burdensome taxes and living in a world where bailouts don't happen, they will invest wisely and create a tech utopia thanks to 'survival of the fittest' principles. However, people feel these rich investor types behave more along the lines of 'libertarian principles when we make money, socialism when we are losing money'. I don't know the extent to that which is true but obviously when rich people have their money threatened it makes sense that they would want a bailout even according to their own 'principles' they shouldn't get it.
    - yucky 4y ago
      > Thiel at least a is a noted libertarian. I think the argument is he's one of the only ones. The claim that SV is a hotbed of libertarians isn't backed up by facts.
  - 4y ago
mellosouls 4y ago
It's ok to point out this is a left wing magazine, but the "investigation results" pasting is over the top and just indicates potential lack of balance in the rest of the comment...
- sonotathrowaway 4y ago
  When you don’t have any facts on your side, you need to rely on innuendo and ad hominems.
wolverine876 4y ago
> Given that both the Fed and the Bank of England have decades-old laws protecting the financial system long before (tech) billionaires, this article seems even more ridiculous. Those laws don't insure deposits over $250,000. The response to SVB is relatively novel in some ways.

waihtis 4y ago

[flagged]

mateus1 4y ago
So “tech bro” is a slur now? This seems a bit exaggerated
- mc32 4y ago
  It’s become an acceptable way of saying “tech thug”. You don’t like someone in tech, you call them a tech bro. Bro by itself is neutral. You don’t like Bill Gates due to his unethical behavior? You call him a tech bro.
  - PM_me_your_math 4y ago
    But Gates doesn't look like a bro. He's more like a Tech Grandpa
    - mc32 4y ago
      Ok, in that light, we might call him a tech geezer.
  - Jcowell 4y ago
    lol. You don’t call someone a thug because you don’t like them. You call someone a thug because they possess the ability to do a potential harm. Tech bros is a term for men who’s life revolves around tech.
  - beepbooptheory 4y ago
    In America, Tech "bro" is clearly meant to reference fraternity culture, or at least a certain kind of male group. The guys who go on spring break and pound beers. That is, a particular kind of insulated and self-reinforcing culture that is distinctly masculine, and comes with all the presumption, chauvinism, and privilege that such a thing always entails. Not to mention treating everything with a somewhat short-term scope: so we get juicero, shitcoins, and now bank runs. Its all just binge drinking on a Sunday night before exams. I don't think the people who use this term are particularly worried about euphemism, the term is direct. Noone thinks Bill Gates is a tech bro, he is just the ealier vanguard and as such now more of a rolemodel.
    - mc32 4y ago
      I think the term you’re looking for is frat. Like a frat guy/boy, or a frat bro. Those are the guys who wanna go tear-assing during spring break. Tech bro borrows from there and applies it hamfistedly to guys who are more interested in making a quick buck, getting high on the newest go to drug, chad around, rip investors off if that’s what comes and live it up like there is no tomorrow, while the going's good. Most males in tech are not like that. His legacy is mixed, on the one hand he did democratize computing, on the other hand he had monopolistic tendencies. And now feeling guilt, he's trying to use his wealth for philanthropy to make up for his past transgressions.
      - beepbooptheory 4y ago
        I don't want to come off snarky, but what exactly do you think you are adding here in your first paragraph? It sounds like you want to correct me, but don't really say anything different. I did not make a claim about most males, but your concern about the matter is noted I guess.
GlacierFox 4y ago
[flagged]
- blahblah1234567 4y ago
  Found the ad-hominem
- Kiro 4y ago
  What are you doing here if you hate tech so much?
  - komali2 4y ago
    Hating tech is one path to improving tech. How many startups have you worked at whose product was the result of the founder being pissed off about something and building a product to solve whatever was pissing them off? For me so far it's two out of four.
  - bena 4y ago
    You can like tech and not be a "tech bro".
mc32 4y ago
It’s in poor taste, at the least and leads to decreased credibility by slurring the subject rather than addressing it head on. If instead the headline had read tech hoes, to riff on urban subculture appropriated by pop TV, instead, people would also treat it accordingly. But this publication consciously decided to run with this headline. It certainly speaks to their bias, if nothing else. That said, these investors and founders who are fair weather libertarians deserve to be criticized, no doubt, but we can do so without banal insults. It's an article, for god's sake, not a random comment on some random blog or an instigating tweet.

_8j50 4y ago

Oh please. You know exactly what the article is saying. You chose to attack the publication instead of their arguments which boils down to Thiel and friends are very much anti-regulation and if it wasn't their money they would resist government interference. Perhaps you could talk about the quoted comments from those billionaires and correct the article?

DrBazza 4y ago
> Perhaps you could talk about the quoted comments All the quotes are barely one sentence, and with zero context, and no link back to when or where they were said. I know modern journalism is lazy and just quotes tweets, but the author could have put a bit more effort in. > when Zuckerberg came up with his mantra, “move fast and break things”, he didn’t just mean code. > Thiel himself is so committed to libertarianism that he has established an eponymous foundation to “defend and promote freedom” > Larry Page, the co-founder of Google, has previously suggested a “limit” on laws to “some set of pages”. “When you add a page, you have to take one away,” he said. > “This is an extinction level event,” warned Garry Tan, the CEO of Y Combinator. > “Where is [the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Jay] Powell? Where is [the Treasury secretary, Janet] Yellen? Stop this crisis NOW,” tweeted the venture capitalist David Sacks
- nayroclade 4y ago
  The article assumes an audience sophisticated and informed enough not to require extensive evidence that Peter Thiel is a libertarian, or that he and associated VCs are generally opposed to government regulation, because those assumed to be established facts. The quotes aren't intended to prove these facts, simply to provide a flavour of the types of rhetoric and attitude they have historically displayed. So what exactly is your argument here? That Thiel and co. aren't libertarians? That they are generally pro-regulation and government bailouts? Or that the article's thesis is invalid simply because it didn't meet your standard of empirical representation, regardless of whether it's true or not?
- nerdponx 4y ago
  The last one at least was literally just a Twitter post with no other context.

andrepd 4y ago

I don't know what your last paragraph is supposed to imply. That there shouldn't be outlets for the Left? That there shouldn't be outlets with stated political positions at all? Or it's just a basic ad hominem? Anyway, as for the substance: a bank had risky behaviour and lost out. Now everyone, including those who never did and never will benefit from that risk, are called to pick up the check. This is, objectively speaking, a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. Now you may justify that with trickle-down economics, but I'm not arguing that point, and neither is the writer. He is merely pointing out how the "leave free enterprise alone" crowd is now suddenly in favour of handouts :)

PM_me_your_math 4y ago
How does the "rich" steal what the poor do not have?
- beepbooptheory 4y ago
  I think you meant to scare quote "steal," not rich. Otherwise this is a very elliptical argument.
fidgewidge 4y ago
> I don't know what your last paragraph is supposed to imply. It's pointing out that the left hates libertarianism and Peter Thiel, leftism is literally the opposite of libertarianism, and so you would expect a left wing news outlet to try and trash Thiel and libertarians whether or not the argument makes any sense or whether it's actually their fault. It's a bias warning.
- panarchy 4y ago
  Not really though. It's worth pointing out that the original Liberartianism in the Sarte/French sense IS a left wing movement and closer to anarchism and would view the companies that American Libertarians love as another extension of authoritarian control that should be reduced or eliminated. Corporate Libertarianism which seems to be the predominant modern one is very right wing though.

enumjorge 4y ago

> The article is an attack on Peter Thiel, not SVB. I don’t understand this comment. The article doesn’t pretend to not be an attack on people like Thiel. It’s in the title. So what’s your point—is Thiel above criticism? And since you imply that a publication somehow automatically loses credibility on this topic by leaning left, here’s a Financial Times opinion piece with a similar premise: https://archive.is/6MBEL https://archive.is/6MBEL

yucky 4y ago
Not to speak for OP, but I think the point is obvious. Silicon Valley culture is liberal to progressive, not libertarian. That means more government intervention is the norm in the industry, not less. Thiel is more of an exception in that regard. The entire premise that Silicon Valley has a libertarian culture is flawed, which is they the article can't back it up.
- toshredsyousay 4y ago
  So my understanding is Silicon Valley programmers have a liberal to progressive culture, but the VCs that fund tech companies have the reputation of being libertarian. Thiel at least a is a noted libertarian. The stereotype is that rich investors have these 'libertarian' ideals where they believe that, freed from burdensome taxes and living in a world where bailouts don't happen, they will invest wisely and create a tech utopia thanks to 'survival of the fittest' principles. However, people feel these rich investor types behave more along the lines of 'libertarian principles when we make money, socialism when we are losing money'. I don't know the extent to that which is true but obviously when rich people have their money threatened it makes sense that they would want a bailout even according to their own 'principles' they shouldn't get it.
  - yucky 4y ago
    > Thiel at least a is a noted libertarian. I think the argument is he's one of the only ones. The claim that SV is a hotbed of libertarians isn't backed up by facts.
- 4y ago

mellosouls 4y ago

It's ok to point out this is a left wing magazine, but the "investigation results" pasting is over the top and just indicates potential lack of balance in the rest of the comment...

sonotathrowaway 4y ago
When you don’t have any facts on your side, you need to rely on innuendo and ad hominems.

wolverine876 4y ago

> Given that both the Fed and the Bank of England have decades-old laws protecting the financial system long before (tech) billionaires, this article seems even more ridiculous. Those laws don't insure deposits over $250,000. The response to SVB is relatively novel in some ways.