4 ms·
Wicklow hotel cancels 'secretive' Peter Thiel group conference
- Animats 4mo ago"Cult-building" on the agenda?
- trencedamp 4mo agoI guess if you think you're meeting is a secret then you can just say what your agenda is out in the open. I mean there's no question these guys are the baddies, right? Look at every reason Peter Thiel has been in the news for the last year
- zdw 4mo agoWhile Thiel's recent Antichrist talks could come to mind, this could just as easily be business speak, like in the Collins/Porras "Built to Last" where one of the points of great companies is "Cult-like culture".
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- Animats 4mo agoYes. There are companies which want "passion", which is really about employee motivation. Zappos, which is a shoe store, has been laughed at for this.
- AvAn12 4mo agoHotel wants to avoid undesirable guests. Seems reasonable.
- Hoasi 4mo agoHow is this secretive if venue is public?
- Fordec 4mo agoIt wasn't public until a an investigative journalist wrote an article about it after the membership of the group was exposed first. Per TFA: > A leaked schedule for the “retreat” hosted by Dialog, an invitation-only group
- nobodyandproud 4mo agoWorking as intended. Though Peter Thiel will do his utmost to further destroy journalists, I’m sure.
- CamperBob2 4mo agoSome have it coming, like the ones at Gawker. Doesn't excuse anything else Thiel has been connected to, of course, but I don't hold that particular lawsuit against him.
- FireBeyond 4mo agoGawker was a garbage-tier publication. But I absolutely do hold that particular lawsuit against him: Gawker didn't "out" Thiel in any meaningful sense. Yes, they published and it was tacky. But let's be very real: Thiel's social media and profile pictures were full of things like him shirtless on gay cruises and parties at gay nightclubs. The only people who learned Thiel was gay from Gawker were people who had no particular interest in him. I also have significant issues with his bankrolling of Hogan's lawsuit against Gawker as an abomination of the legal system, including the right to face one's "accuser": - Prior to Thiel's involvement, Hogan had already agreed in principle to a part ownership stake and profits of Gawker. He'd also already settled, and forgiven, the person who gave Gawker the sex tape in the first place. - Lawyers paid for by Thiel pushed for him to drop that and push instead for bankrupting Gawker through damages (which were laughable, see below). (Hypothetical question, if you're an attorney, ostensibly representing Hogan, but you know the person paying your bills, Thiel, wants a different outcome for the case, when push comes to shove, whose interests are you going to represent? See the following point too). - When the case and awarded damages -did- actually threaten to bankrupt Gawker, Thiel/Hogan's lawyers did the most illogical thing possible, if they were looking to recoup any money for their ostensible client... they dropped the one claim against Gawker that would have allowed their liability insurance to at least partially pay out. Remember, Hogan could use that money far, far more than Thiel. (Re damages: The amount that Hogan had originally asked for seemed reasonable. Then after Thiel's lawyers got involved, the amount asked for was multiplied five thousand times.) This included economic damages of fifty million dollars. For a man who had made something in the order of $20-25M his entire career? Who had a net worth at its peak of $30M, and at the time of the lawsuit, a NW of $8M? I highly doubt that TV stations pulling reruns of old WWF events, hair loss commercials and other endorsements was worth that. (They separately asked for emotional damages, too, to be clear. But there was near zero justification for this economic damages claim.) I wonder how much Thiel paid Hogan under the table for this proxy lawsuit? Because it sure looks like he was playing puppeteer, and while Hogan had every right to be bitter about what Gawker did, his every action to resolve or plan to resolve the matter pivoted 180 degrees the moment "his" lawyers got involved, and perhaps unsurprisingly, the outcome perfectly aligned with Thiel's goals.
- netsharc 4mo ago[flagged]
- pgt 4mo ago[flagged]
- rcxdude 4mo agoHotels cancel events all the time, when they prove to be more trouble than they're worth. In extreme cases, they might cancel the event while it's running and kick out the attendees and organizers.
- nobodyandproud 4mo agoWhy is a privately owned hotel compelled to deal with controversy not of its making? Perhaps things work differently for those of South African persuasion…
- esseph 4mo ago> If the hotel cancelled it, it's suicide for the hotel. This is silly. The hotel will be fine, they could give two fucks about some private party when another will take its place.
- wat10000 4mo agoNobody's going to be looking for a venue for a wedding or a whale biology conference and think, that hotel looks nice, but they canceled Palantir, so they just can't be trusted.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- Natfan 4mo agoshould a hotel ban nazis who are going there to incite violence? where do you draw the line?
- AlpacaJones 4mo agoIt's a popular hotel in a stunning location. It will do even better after this. What sort of eejit other than yourself will think, 'I won't book this hotel because they cancelled a Dialog event'?
- buran77 4mo agoIt's safe to assume that once the secret location of the secretive conference stopped being so secret, the organizers and attendees went looking for a more private venue.
- trhway 4mo ago[flagged]
- ares623 4mo agoWhatever happened to all those 4channers going after the super secret cabal running the deepstate?
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- guywithahat 4mo agoAren’t most events at hotels “secretive”? Our company all hands certainly isn’t a public event. It’s seems reasonable that defense companies may not always want their events to be public and in newspapers
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- FireBeyond 4mo agoAdvertised? No. Secretive? No. In all the company events and such that I've been to at hotels and casinos, there's usually signs in the lobby, "Welcome X", or at least on the screens or signs by conference room doors telling you exactly who is there (I will not pretend, and know, that this is not always the case. But it's generally fairly trivial to figure these things out.)
- rsynnott 4mo agoIn this case the hotel claims they weren’t told what it was.
- Obscurity4340 4mo agoDoes he still go on about being heterodox?