Hacker News Reader

Comment by keepper | Hacker News Reader

A racist billionaire[1], funding another racist millionaire[2], supporting another racist billionaire[3]

But everyone seems to be ok with this, because of pseudo libertarianism?

Libertarianism: "All the parts of government that benefit rich folks are legit/necessary/essential. All the parts that benefit poor folks are illegitimate/aggression/tyranny."

Oh man... what is going on!?!

[1]https://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?artic...

[2]http://nypost.com/2015/07/24/why-is-wwe-frantically-scrubbin...

[3]http://www.salon.com/2016/06/09/donald_trumps_response_to_re...

[3a]http://www.wired.com/2016/05/investor-peter-thiel-will-calif...

View on HN

"A racist billionaire[1]"

Penn Jillette has a great saying on this (paraphrasing):

"Unless the person has explicitly said they're racist, claiming someone is racist requires the power to look into someone's heart, which no one has. The KKK and stormfront are very open that they are racists, and you can call those people racist because they say they are. You cannot make these sorts of claims without putting words into other people's mouth".

And you're putting words in someone's mouth. According to that article, Thiel believes that affirmative action is not helping the poor or disenfranchised, but is rather helping the middle and upper class people. Extrapolating racism from his statements is a giant leap in logic.

I've argued both sides of this. I don't believe in the absolutist case in either direction.

If someone's making a plausible and reasonably consistent, and especially not self-serving case that they hold, or don't hold, some belief, I'll generally allow them to own it. I'll especially allow them to own it in preference to another party with a specific, partisan, self-serving, and most especially, non-credible axe to grind in denying that self-labeling.

That said, if the self-claim is grossly inconsistent, self-serving, and implausible, I'll deny it.

I'm not judging the current case either way. I'm not a fan of Gawkers, but am also hugely concerned with the precedent Thiel's made here.

Yes but: https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/06/09/paypal-co-fou...

FYI, I accidentally downvoted this. Sorry.

Wait, wait - are you seriously suggesting that people should be treated differently by the legal system based on the political views that they hold?

This is one of the fundamental tenants of western democracy that you're up against here, not "pseudo libertarianism". Rule of Law. We want our legal system to punish people and organizations that publish sex tapes made without the involved parties' consent. Sometimes that means that a "racist billionaire" funds a lawsuit by "another racist millionaire".

If you're attacking the people involved for their social and political views, you may as well ask what the views are of the people involved in Gawker as well.

http://nypost.com/2016/03/09/gawker-editors-line-a-sex-tape-...

And there are way more examples out there. Like Sam Biddle and his bullying comments, or various disturbing anti male comments by Jezebel, or various comments about wishing horrible things on their opponents.

This is not a black and white situation.

It isn't an "attack". Look, I'm not trying to change minds, I'm hoping people step back for a second, and see this for what it is. Just another thin skinned person with way too much financial power getting his way.

Pointing out the attack on Gawker is wrong, does not mean I condone Gawkers' behavior. That's pretty much the definition of seeing the world in the shades of gray/color it actually is.

There's some perverse doublethink going on when it's considered racist to suggest we stop discriminating on the basis of race.

He's expressed support on the "right" of businesses to discriminate based on race/gender/etc[1]. As well as libertarianism being critical of the civil rights act, the civil war, etc [2].

How is that doublethink?

[1] http://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education... [2] http://reason.com/archives/2010/06/16/racism-civil-rights-an...

Please provide reputable sources for your claims.

Since [1] has already been addressed, what exactly makes Donald Trump a racist?

Calling his comments about that judge "racist" is a bit of a stretch.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com