4 ms·

> Eight years ago, the PayPal and Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel was an outlier in liberal Silicon Valley for publicly supporting Donald Trump. Is the opening

> Eight years ago, the PayPal and Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel was an outlier in liberal Silicon Valley for publicly supporting Donald Trump. Is the opening sentence supposed to imply that Thiel (and Elon) are no longer outliers? I thought 99% of the SV elite were still donating vast sums of money to the other party. Since, all of a sudden, everyone is concerned with billionaires why the obsession with Elon? It’s OK when big money donates to one side but not the other?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
kombookcha 2y ago
>why the obsession with Elon Elon is notorious for chasing the limelight and keeping it on him personally more so than the product. Most billionaires are content with doing this type of stuff fairly quietly, hence they attract less attention. If you do shit for attention all the time you're probably going to get more of it, but it won't necessarily be flattering or directed in the way you want.
- hi-v-rocknroll 2y ago
  John McAfee-style.
rtpg 2y ago
To be honest my impression is that any "loud" VC is firmly in the Musk camp. And maybe just disagrees with Musk on a tactical level but generally would like for a lot of discussions to stop happening. There's probably a bit of a "intellectual dark web" silliness going on where they all think they are being oppressed for their opinions, despite probably being the silent... plurality I guess in their cohort. Of course when they talk about this in public fora, many people outside their cohort[0] will react negatively to them. [0]: glibly, outside their bubble.
jimbob45 2y ago
It’s OK when big money donates to one side but not the other? For those not familiar with American politics, virtually all large money donors donate to both sides to varying degrees. This is primarily to get both your favored candidate in the race and remove tough matchups from the opposing side via the primary process. The real difference is who you choose to vocally support.
aldous 2y ago
The article explicitly references donations to the Democrats too btw, the authors overarching point appears to be this idea that the vastly wealthy consider themselves above the state and the rule of law. This is not a new phenomena, history is resplendent with examples of the abundantly rich desiring, obtaining and then exercising absolute power. Spoiler alert: it usually doesn't end well for the populace at large or ultimately themselves. I'd agree with the authors point about the ostensibly short sightedness of Elon et al's seeming desire for a rich absolutism: they are barking up the wrong, unsustainable tree. A well functioning and financially supported democracy is very very good for the economy and good for them! A better provision of public goods, infrastructure and a healthy populace is very very good for business isn't it? Democratic decline also brings with it instability, anti competitive kleptocracy, stagnation, and consumers strapped for cash; not the ideal conditions within which to sell their services. Which makes me wonder: is Elon's current political posturing not really based on any canny reasoning, but just plane old reactive emotional impulse. I really wouldn't be surprised if, as the author suggests, Elon's perceived Biden snub is really a big part of this or at least behind its genesis. Which is a good final point on unchecked power and its pitfalls, who wants to be at the mercy of an individual's emotional petulant whims, compulsions and outbursts? Surely none of us right?
hi-v-rocknroll 2y ago
The second time around helps normalizes deviancy through repeated exposure.
matthewmacleod 2y ago
It’s OK when big money donates to one side but not the other? Yes. People are reasonably permitted to form opinions based on causes that people fund. I think it is bad when people pump money into a cause, campaign, or other endeavour that I think is harmful, and think people can reasonably be criticised for doing so. Funding the opposition isn’t something I think is bad; you are free to feel differently. I don’t like the idea that we are somehow obligated to be neutral in all things. Trump is awful, any person contributing to his campaign deserves to be criticised, and that’s totally okay.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

kombookcha 2y ago

>why the obsession with Elon Elon is notorious for chasing the limelight and keeping it on him personally more so than the product. Most billionaires are content with doing this type of stuff fairly quietly, hence they attract less attention. If you do shit for attention all the time you're probably going to get more of it, but it won't necessarily be flattering or directed in the way you want.

hi-v-rocknroll 2y ago
John McAfee-style.

rtpg 2y ago

To be honest my impression is that any "loud" VC is firmly in the Musk camp. And maybe just disagrees with Musk on a tactical level but generally would like for a lot of discussions to stop happening. There's probably a bit of a "intellectual dark web" silliness going on where they all think they are being oppressed for their opinions, despite probably being the silent... plurality I guess in their cohort. Of course when they talk about this in public fora, many people outside their cohort[0] will react negatively to them. [0]: glibly, outside their bubble.

jimbob45 2y ago

It’s OK when big money donates to one side but not the other? For those not familiar with American politics, virtually all large money donors donate to both sides to varying degrees. This is primarily to get both your favored candidate in the race and remove tough matchups from the opposing side via the primary process. The real difference is who you choose to vocally support.

aldous 2y ago

The article explicitly references donations to the Democrats too btw, the authors overarching point appears to be this idea that the vastly wealthy consider themselves above the state and the rule of law. This is not a new phenomena, history is resplendent with examples of the abundantly rich desiring, obtaining and then exercising absolute power. Spoiler alert: it usually doesn't end well for the populace at large or ultimately themselves. I'd agree with the authors point about the ostensibly short sightedness of Elon et al's seeming desire for a rich absolutism: they are barking up the wrong, unsustainable tree. A well functioning and financially supported democracy is very very good for the economy and good for them! A better provision of public goods, infrastructure and a healthy populace is very very good for business isn't it? Democratic decline also brings with it instability, anti competitive kleptocracy, stagnation, and consumers strapped for cash; not the ideal conditions within which to sell their services. Which makes me wonder: is Elon's current political posturing not really based on any canny reasoning, but just plane old reactive emotional impulse. I really wouldn't be surprised if, as the author suggests, Elon's perceived Biden snub is really a big part of this or at least behind its genesis. Which is a good final point on unchecked power and its pitfalls, who wants to be at the mercy of an individual's emotional petulant whims, compulsions and outbursts? Surely none of us right?

hi-v-rocknroll 2y ago

The second time around helps normalizes deviancy through repeated exposure.

matthewmacleod 2y ago

It’s OK when big money donates to one side but not the other? Yes. People are reasonably permitted to form opinions based on causes that people fund. I think it is bad when people pump money into a cause, campaign, or other endeavour that I think is harmful, and think people can reasonably be criticised for doing so. Funding the opposition isn’t something I think is bad; you are free to feel differently. I don’t like the idea that we are somehow obligated to be neutral in all things. Trump is awful, any person contributing to his campaign deserves to be criticised, and that’s totally okay.