5 ms·

The fact Alex Karp has any security clearance at all boggles the mind.

by mosura 7mo ago

KellyCriterion 7mo ago
Isnt this required anyway for everybody doing military & gov contracts?
- wavefunction 7mo ago
  Not for Jared Kushner and I expect he's not the only one.
kypro 7mo ago
[flagged]
- xvector 7mo ago
  Could it be people dislike him because he enables anti-democratic capabilities like mass domestic surveillance, and enthusiastically supports an administration with little regard for the law?
  - kypro 7mo ago
    What's the argument though, no security clearance for people who have the wrong politics? Also, Palantir only works with democratic countries for a reason... They might provide "anti-democratic capabilities", but by that definition any defence company or AI company wouldn't be liable for security clearance because they also provide capabilities which could be used in anti-democratic ways.
    - xvector 7mo ago
      > Palantir only works with democratic countries Irrelevant when the administrations of these countries have zero regard for constitutional rights. > no security clearance for people who have the wrong politics? Yup, seems to be Karp's and the government's own opinion re Anthropic.
    - dragonwriter 7mo ago
      > Also, Palantir only works with democratic countries for a reason Because democracy is the target they are aimed against, as Peter Thiel has openly said that he views “freedom”, the ideal he seeks (and which he clearly defines in an unusual way), as fundamentally incompatible with democracy. It’s the fascist version of the old communist adage about capitalist democracies selling you the rope with which you will hang them, only in the fascist version the democracy buys the rope from you and hangs themself with it.
    - krupan 7mo ago
      "What's the argument though, no security clearance for people who have the wrong politics?" Absolutely! It shouldn't be based on Democrat or Republican politics, but promoting politics that undermine the Constitution absolutely should disqualify you from getting a security clearance
- watwut 7mo ago
  It is his opinions and political goals. Not because he is maybe possibly on spectrum, which is something that does not make him any less awful.
  - kypro 7mo ago
    Well that's even worse... I'm not sure I can personally get onboard with the idea of a government preventing people from obtaining security clearance for their personal or political opinions to be honest, unless they are directly opposed to the national security interests of the US of course... What relevance does someone not liking his opinions and politics have on whether or not he should obtain security clearance? I assume your position here is more nuanced that what your comment suggests?
    - watwut 7mo ago
      It is 100% ok to hate on someone due to their opinions and goals. And being neurodivergent does not excuse having fascist opinions and goals. Simple as that. And when it comes to security clearance, yes your ideology plays the role, always did. And should play the role. A simple example is that if your general ideology is "I dont care about law and I prefer to be an agent of a foreign country" then you should have no clearance.
      - kypro 7mo ago
        > It is 100% ok to hate on someone due to their opinions and goals. And being neurodivergent does not excuse having fascist opinions and goals. Simple as that. I agree. > And when it comes to security clearance, yes your ideology plays the role, always did. And should play the role. A simple example is that if your general ideology is "I dont care about law and I prefer to be an agent of a foreign country" then you should have no clearance. Of course. What's important here though is what ideologies it's reasonable discriminate against. Someone's opinion of someones politics isn't really relevant, unless their political views are a clear risk to national security. I'd agree that someone being communist sympathising or fascist sympathising could be reason to reason to revoke someone's security clearance. Whether it's reasonable to suggest Karp holds fascist opinions though, I won't comment on beyond suggesting that might not be the most charitable take.
- LunaSea 7mo ago
  If by spectrum the psychopathy spectrum is meant, then yes, he's on the spectrum.
  - kypro 7mo ago
    People frequently misunderstand me for someone who is lacking emotions. I can't speak for Karp but I just experience and express them differently. He may be on the psychopathy spectrum. I don't know. But it wouldn't surprise me if people are misunderstanding him. Given you're making assumptions that he is on the psychopathy spectrum here, I will assume statistically that's unlikely and it's much more likely that people are simply misunderstanding him in ways people often misunderstand neurodivergent individuals.
    - LunaSea 7mo ago
      > I will assume statistically that's unlikely Statistically, CEOs of large companies are quite well represented on the psychopathy spectrum. Just a few of his quotes: > Critics calling Palantir a surveillance company are “parasitic.” > We don’t do holidays. > he's proud "the death and pain that is brought to our enemies is mostly, not exclusively, brought by Palantir." > About the legalisation of war crimes: "Part of the reason why I like this questioning is the more constitutional you want to make it, the more precise you want to make it, the more you’re going to need my product,"
    - mikkupikku 7mo ago
      > People frequently misunderstand me for someone who is lacking emotions. Yup. In the minds of normies, flat affect = serial killer psycho.
      - cindyllm 7mo ago
        [dead]
- dragonwriter 7mo ago
  I feel like 95% of the hate he gets is because he is CEO of a firm whose Chairman is a fascist and whose role is driving democratic states into fascism, which as a person opposed to fascism (and incidentally on the spectrum) makes me happy.
- ashtonshears 7mo ago
  Mate, read his quotes or watch on youtube. There is no reason for you to use that as a scapegoat, when there is clearly obvious reasons some may not like him.
- ncr100 7mo ago
  He acts like a villain. He talks about his company's business in inhumane terms - Karp seems to me to enjoy piercing what is a longstanding euphemism of "for national security purposes" used by nation-states and security contractors, by employing what has become his signature (paraphrasing) rhetoric of, ".. and through using our products this can have the outcome of killing of certain specific people". That seems like a deliberate rhetorical choice rather than anything to do with, "the spectrum." SO, I disagree about "the spectrum". EDIT: And to be clear about MY opinion ... "villain" => "evil" => "dividing humanity" => "inhumane" => "post-human hellscape" / "humans for anti-human behavior" / "philosophy of capitalizing upon destruction"
  - kypro 7mo ago
    > employing what has become his signature (paraphrasing) rhetoric of, ".. and through using our products this can have the outcome of killing of certain specific people". That seems like a deliberate rhetorical choice rather than anything to do with, "the spectrum." I do this often. I think because I am autistic. Neurotypical's use language in very indirect and subtle ways that I do not like. Some words mean the same things but are perceived as more offensive or more acceptable. If I must ever eat meat I make sure I will say things like "pass me a slice of cow" instead of "beef" or "pork". I refer to the act of imprisoning people as "caging". I refer to "culling" as "mass extermination", etc. I think we have a duty to be as brutal as possible when we are talking about harming animals and humans. If you are off put by what you are doing, then perhaps you shouldn't be doing it.
- mosura 7mo ago
  You and many of your repliers are framing this as a “like” thing: it’s not. The key question is “can you trust this guy?” and he is so clearly not trustable it’s amazing. Makes them look like the FTX of data processing.
  - kypro 7mo ago
    Unlike the other comments here, I think this is a very genuine reason to not give someone security clearance. This has nothing to do with ideology, but does question whether someone is likely to act in way that serves national interests. Whether or not Karp can be trusted, I don't know, but I thin it's something governments should at least question, and believe most (all?) already do.

The fact Alex Karp has any security clearance at all boggles the mind.

by mosura 7mo ago

The fact Alex Karp has any security clearance at all boggles the mind.

KellyCriterion 7mo ago

Isnt this required anyway for everybody doing military & gov contracts?

wavefunction 7mo ago
Not for Jared Kushner and I expect he's not the only one.

kypro 7mo ago

[flagged]

xvector 7mo ago
Could it be people dislike him because he enables anti-democratic capabilities like mass domestic surveillance, and enthusiastically supports an administration with little regard for the law?
- kypro 7mo ago
  What's the argument though, no security clearance for people who have the wrong politics? Also, Palantir only works with democratic countries for a reason... They might provide "anti-democratic capabilities", but by that definition any defence company or AI company wouldn't be liable for security clearance because they also provide capabilities which could be used in anti-democratic ways.
  - xvector 7mo ago
    > Palantir only works with democratic countries Irrelevant when the administrations of these countries have zero regard for constitutional rights. > no security clearance for people who have the wrong politics? Yup, seems to be Karp's and the government's own opinion re Anthropic.
  - dragonwriter 7mo ago
    > Also, Palantir only works with democratic countries for a reason Because democracy is the target they are aimed against, as Peter Thiel has openly said that he views “freedom”, the ideal he seeks (and which he clearly defines in an unusual way), as fundamentally incompatible with democracy. It’s the fascist version of the old communist adage about capitalist democracies selling you the rope with which you will hang them, only in the fascist version the democracy buys the rope from you and hangs themself with it.
  - krupan 7mo ago
    "What's the argument though, no security clearance for people who have the wrong politics?" Absolutely! It shouldn't be based on Democrat or Republican politics, but promoting politics that undermine the Constitution absolutely should disqualify you from getting a security clearance
watwut 7mo ago
It is his opinions and political goals. Not because he is maybe possibly on spectrum, which is something that does not make him any less awful.
- kypro 7mo ago
  Well that's even worse... I'm not sure I can personally get onboard with the idea of a government preventing people from obtaining security clearance for their personal or political opinions to be honest, unless they are directly opposed to the national security interests of the US of course... What relevance does someone not liking his opinions and politics have on whether or not he should obtain security clearance? I assume your position here is more nuanced that what your comment suggests?
  - watwut 7mo ago
    It is 100% ok to hate on someone due to their opinions and goals. And being neurodivergent does not excuse having fascist opinions and goals. Simple as that. And when it comes to security clearance, yes your ideology plays the role, always did. And should play the role. A simple example is that if your general ideology is "I dont care about law and I prefer to be an agent of a foreign country" then you should have no clearance.
    - kypro 7mo ago
      > It is 100% ok to hate on someone due to their opinions and goals. And being neurodivergent does not excuse having fascist opinions and goals. Simple as that. I agree. > And when it comes to security clearance, yes your ideology plays the role, always did. And should play the role. A simple example is that if your general ideology is "I dont care about law and I prefer to be an agent of a foreign country" then you should have no clearance. Of course. What's important here though is what ideologies it's reasonable discriminate against. Someone's opinion of someones politics isn't really relevant, unless their political views are a clear risk to national security. I'd agree that someone being communist sympathising or fascist sympathising could be reason to reason to revoke someone's security clearance. Whether it's reasonable to suggest Karp holds fascist opinions though, I won't comment on beyond suggesting that might not be the most charitable take.
LunaSea 7mo ago
If by spectrum the psychopathy spectrum is meant, then yes, he's on the spectrum.
- kypro 7mo ago
  People frequently misunderstand me for someone who is lacking emotions. I can't speak for Karp but I just experience and express them differently. He may be on the psychopathy spectrum. I don't know. But it wouldn't surprise me if people are misunderstanding him. Given you're making assumptions that he is on the psychopathy spectrum here, I will assume statistically that's unlikely and it's much more likely that people are simply misunderstanding him in ways people often misunderstand neurodivergent individuals.
  - LunaSea 7mo ago
    > I will assume statistically that's unlikely Statistically, CEOs of large companies are quite well represented on the psychopathy spectrum. Just a few of his quotes: > Critics calling Palantir a surveillance company are “parasitic.” > We don’t do holidays. > he's proud "the death and pain that is brought to our enemies is mostly, not exclusively, brought by Palantir." > About the legalisation of war crimes: "Part of the reason why I like this questioning is the more constitutional you want to make it, the more precise you want to make it, the more you’re going to need my product,"
  - mikkupikku 7mo ago
    > People frequently misunderstand me for someone who is lacking emotions. Yup. In the minds of normies, flat affect = serial killer psycho.
    - cindyllm 7mo ago
      [dead]
dragonwriter 7mo ago
I feel like 95% of the hate he gets is because he is CEO of a firm whose Chairman is a fascist and whose role is driving democratic states into fascism, which as a person opposed to fascism (and incidentally on the spectrum) makes me happy.
ashtonshears 7mo ago
Mate, read his quotes or watch on youtube. There is no reason for you to use that as a scapegoat, when there is clearly obvious reasons some may not like him.
ncr100 7mo ago
He acts like a villain. He talks about his company's business in inhumane terms - Karp seems to me to enjoy piercing what is a longstanding euphemism of "for national security purposes" used by nation-states and security contractors, by employing what has become his signature (paraphrasing) rhetoric of, ".. and through using our products this can have the outcome of killing of certain specific people". That seems like a deliberate rhetorical choice rather than anything to do with, "the spectrum." SO, I disagree about "the spectrum". EDIT: And to be clear about MY opinion ... "villain" => "evil" => "dividing humanity" => "inhumane" => "post-human hellscape" / "humans for anti-human behavior" / "philosophy of capitalizing upon destruction"
- kypro 7mo ago
  > employing what has become his signature (paraphrasing) rhetoric of, ".. and through using our products this can have the outcome of killing of certain specific people". That seems like a deliberate rhetorical choice rather than anything to do with, "the spectrum." I do this often. I think because I am autistic. Neurotypical's use language in very indirect and subtle ways that I do not like. Some words mean the same things but are perceived as more offensive or more acceptable. If I must ever eat meat I make sure I will say things like "pass me a slice of cow" instead of "beef" or "pork". I refer to the act of imprisoning people as "caging". I refer to "culling" as "mass extermination", etc. I think we have a duty to be as brutal as possible when we are talking about harming animals and humans. If you are off put by what you are doing, then perhaps you shouldn't be doing it.
mosura 7mo ago
You and many of your repliers are framing this as a “like” thing: it’s not. The key question is “can you trust this guy?” and he is so clearly not trustable it’s amazing. Makes them look like the FTX of data processing.
- kypro 7mo ago
  Unlike the other comments here, I think this is a very genuine reason to not give someone security clearance. This has nothing to do with ideology, but does question whether someone is likely to act in way that serves national interests. Whether or not Karp can be trusted, I don't know, but I thin it's something governments should at least question, and believe most (all?) already do.