4 ms·

The part I don’t understand is that you feel Gawker was scum. Thiel removed Gawker’s ability to be scum. Thus, by logic, the world was improved. Isn’t that the

The part I don’t understand is that you feel Gawker was scum. Thiel removed Gawker’s ability to be scum. Thus, by logic, the world was improved. Isn’t that the core of what you’re saying you wish billionaires did? Improve the world? Quoting you: > I can't stand it that people with such an opportunity for improving the world around them would squander it and wreck it. This seems like the crux of our disagreement. I feel the law is a means to an end. Is it correct that you feel the law is the end of the debate? Or that people who can afford to accept the penalties under the law are scum for choosing to accept such penalties? I’m trying to make your worldview consistent and complete, but there might be a Gödel problem here.

jacquesm 3y ago
It is possible to believe that both parties in a lawsuit are scum. Gawker was scum because of what they did to Hogan. Thiel was scum because of what he did to Gawker. The two are not mutually exclusive. Thiel used Hogan in much the same way that Hogan was used by Gawker: to further their own goals. > I feel the law is a means to an end. It is a reasonably practical approach to a - hopefully - minimal set of rules that society needs to make it all work. Having parties that perform in extra-legal ways breaks that principle and (1) requires the continued expansion of the volume of law to close the holes and (2) creates a non-level playingfield where the rich get to use their money to improve their own station at the expense of everybody else. Nobody should have that kind of power. > Is it correct that you feel the law is the end of the debate? No, I think it is very well possible that you find the need to change laws, amend them or remove them based on evaluation by the various legislative bodies, judges and advocates. But once something is written into law things bifurcate considerably compared between say the USA and the EU: in the USA the letter of the law is what drives the process, in the EU it is the spirit of the law that drives the process. This isn't as clear cut as I would like it to be, there are examples of the reverse on both sides but it serves as a useful shortcut. And, incidentally, it is also why US companies tend to have a hard time in Europe when faced with lawsuits that they think they can escape on a technicality: such tricks rarely work here and can easily make your problems worse. > Or that people who can afford to accept the penalties under the law are scum for choosing to accept such penalties? I'm not sure I can follow you there. What do you mean exactly? > I’m trying to make your worldview consistent and complete, but there might be a Gödel problem here. Or it may simply be that to fully understand someone's worldview you'd have to be that person and that anything else is just an approximation. I've met > 5 and < 10 billionaires in person. Some of them were the most humble and incredible people I have ever met, you wouldn't know their names and you would never realize that they did what they did because they do so quietly and effectively. And some are utter jerks that see this world as their personal playground where the rules are for suckers and their money insulates them from the consequences of their actions. The latter group is over-represented in the SV eco system, and it is something that we will all end up regretting, these people have a lot of power but not a gram of responsibility or ethics. You are not a person to them, you are a disposable unit that either serves to further their interests, can be discarded, ignored or destroyed at a whim.
- OnlineGladiator 3y ago
  > I've met > 5 and < 10 billionaires in person. Some of them were the most humble and incredible people I have ever met, you wouldn't know their names and you would never realize that they did what they did because they do so quietly and effectively. I realize this is a tangent, but I'm pleasantly surprised you've met billionaires you consider good people. I was actually about to post a comment saying all the billionaires I've met (about the same number as you) are horrible people. If you're willing to share - what was the approximate ratio of good to bad amongst the billionaires you've met?
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    Interesting question. So, for context: I meet a lot of people from the investment world and within that world there are many strata, former and current entrepreneurs, media people, heirs and bankers. Some of those have made it very big, their successes are quite visible but it isn't always immediately obvious who the people behind the successes are. But in my line of business that veil gets pulled up on occasion and then you can get a closer view of what that world looks like and how it works. I just did a tally of the ones I'm sure are well above $1B, and I would say the ratio is about 3:1 for jerks vs really, really good people. I really don't want to drop names and it is one of the reasons why my company website does not list our clients. But my exposure is mostly to EU parties (though I know a very small number in the USA as well and one in Canada).
mrguyorama 3y ago
>Thiel removed Gawker’s ability to be scum. Thus, by logic, the world was improved. I mean, this is just textbook ends justifying the means right? It doesn't matter what someone does if you like the outcome?

jacquesm 3y ago

It is possible to believe that both parties in a lawsuit are scum. Gawker was scum because of what they did to Hogan. Thiel was scum because of what he did to Gawker. The two are not mutually exclusive. Thiel used Hogan in much the same way that Hogan was used by Gawker: to further their own goals. > I feel the law is a means to an end. It is a reasonably practical approach to a - hopefully - minimal set of rules that society needs to make it all work. Having parties that perform in extra-legal ways breaks that principle and (1) requires the continued expansion of the volume of law to close the holes and (2) creates a non-level playingfield where the rich get to use their money to improve their own station at the expense of everybody else. Nobody should have that kind of power. > Is it correct that you feel the law is the end of the debate? No, I think it is very well possible that you find the need to change laws, amend them or remove them based on evaluation by the various legislative bodies, judges and advocates. But once something is written into law things bifurcate considerably compared between say the USA and the EU: in the USA the letter of the law is what drives the process, in the EU it is the spirit of the law that drives the process. This isn't as clear cut as I would like it to be, there are examples of the reverse on both sides but it serves as a useful shortcut. And, incidentally, it is also why US companies tend to have a hard time in Europe when faced with lawsuits that they think they can escape on a technicality: such tricks rarely work here and can easily make your problems worse. > Or that people who can afford to accept the penalties under the law are scum for choosing to accept such penalties? I'm not sure I can follow you there. What do you mean exactly? > I’m trying to make your worldview consistent and complete, but there might be a Gödel problem here. Or it may simply be that to fully understand someone's worldview you'd have to be that person and that anything else is just an approximation. I've met > 5 and < 10 billionaires in person. Some of them were the most humble and incredible people I have ever met, you wouldn't know their names and you would never realize that they did what they did because they do so quietly and effectively. And some are utter jerks that see this world as their personal playground where the rules are for suckers and their money insulates them from the consequences of their actions. The latter group is over-represented in the SV eco system, and it is something that we will all end up regretting, these people have a lot of power but not a gram of responsibility or ethics. You are not a person to them, you are a disposable unit that either serves to further their interests, can be discarded, ignored or destroyed at a whim.

OnlineGladiator 3y ago
> I've met > 5 and < 10 billionaires in person. Some of them were the most humble and incredible people I have ever met, you wouldn't know their names and you would never realize that they did what they did because they do so quietly and effectively. I realize this is a tangent, but I'm pleasantly surprised you've met billionaires you consider good people. I was actually about to post a comment saying all the billionaires I've met (about the same number as you) are horrible people. If you're willing to share - what was the approximate ratio of good to bad amongst the billionaires you've met?
- jacquesm 3y ago
  Interesting question. So, for context: I meet a lot of people from the investment world and within that world there are many strata, former and current entrepreneurs, media people, heirs and bankers. Some of those have made it very big, their successes are quite visible but it isn't always immediately obvious who the people behind the successes are. But in my line of business that veil gets pulled up on occasion and then you can get a closer view of what that world looks like and how it works. I just did a tally of the ones I'm sure are well above $1B, and I would say the ratio is about 3:1 for jerks vs really, really good people. I really don't want to drop names and it is one of the reasons why my company website does not list our clients. But my exposure is mostly to EU parties (though I know a very small number in the USA as well and one in Canada).

mrguyorama 3y ago

>Thiel removed Gawker’s ability to be scum. Thus, by logic, the world was improved. I mean, this is just textbook ends justifying the means right? It doesn't matter what someone does if you like the outcome?