How Silicon Valley Treats a Trump Backer: Peter Thiel
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
I believe Peter Thiel is acting in what he believes to be the country's, or possibly the world's, best interests. I also believe that he's totally wrong. Lots of investors I've enjoyed working with before have been completely off-base about (and made much bigger investments in) major trends I've thought to be implausible, but I've been very happy with their guidance and support nonetheless.
My opinion might be different if he explicitly supported some of the specific insane ramblings the Trump ticket has dished out recently. I'm not willing to work with an investor who wouldn't respect my marriage to my wife, or who doesn't think I deserve equal pay for equal work. But he's not saying those things; he's suggesting that, on balance, the world would be better off with Trump and a Republican presidency than Hillary and a Democratic white house. Heck, he might even be right, time will tell.
Frankly, this whole thing has left me respecting Peter Thiel even more. He knew that the full weight of his peer group would fall on him when he spoke at the RNC and made this very public donation, but he did it anyways. Avoiding the typical VC herd mentality is child's play in comparison.
I lost nearly all respect for Thiel based on his opinions about science vs industry. For reference, his thinking that startups are in any way similar to academia in regards to scientific discovery is completely out there and ignores the obvious reality that startups don't produce scientific knowledge.
His backing of Trump simply reinforces my already poor opinion of him. He's never bothered thinking things through and has always had an arrogant streak where he thinks business beats everything. If you believe he's totally wrong you'd be a fool to work with him.
People who indulge in such activities are clearly breaking the law and should be reported. Pieter supporting Trump is legal!
> I don't want to associate with, or have someone benefit from my labor, or even profit from their insights if I have such moral disagreements.
So you don't want to associate with half the country? It's your choice, but do you see the importance of letting people have different opinions (as long as they are legally acceptable) and agree to disagree?
Being rich does not imply merit in science and knowledge, and certainly not in ethics.
How does Thiel feel about his choice, who has questioned the legitimacy of the American electoral process and outcome, in advance of the election - ipso facto if Trump does not win, the election must be illegitimate and a Clinton presidency also illegitimate? Perhaps Thiel feels OK with his choice. Perhaps he can dismiss that every paper of record on the planet has just gone ape shit over this issue in the last couple of hours. Maybe the tax cut Thiel thinks he's going to get from Trump is still worth it - that sort of selfishness would at least be rational.
But rational alone does not inoculate someone from having their judgment of character questioned. And in fact a questioning of their political ideology - in light of what Trump has said, it's an open question if Thiel prefers autocracy over having a Republic. It's not crazy to have this question for any of Trump's supporters in light of what Trump has said.
Tonight's and tomorrow's headlines are historic, shocking, alarming, but they're not really surprising because this sort of delegitimizing is a hallmark of Trump's modus operandi, having spent 7.5 years trying to delegitimize the current president with the blatant lie he was not a natural born citizen; now turning it into a pre-delegitimization of a would-be Clinton presidency by impugning the electoral process itself. This is a person who lays waste to everything he touches, and Peter Thiel is yet another person to get sucked into the Trump con vortex.
So at the very least, he's a sucker. It's just as likely that what you call success, was dumb blind luck by another name. He got lucky, despite being wholly deficient in evaluating Trump's character.
And I do not agree with the idea that it is antithetical to "diversity" to ask such questions, or challenge people who have more resources, and in effect more speech, on these issues.
No, he doesn't just do stuff. He has built many objectively successful companies and made a great deal of objective money. That is not an opinion. The rest of your post is a non-sequitur.
If you want to play a game of vaguery, you're on your own, Otherwise you're welcome to specifically point out which of my conclusions is unsupported by the available facts. There is a difference between a non-sequitur and editorialization.
And what if Peter Thiel did say this? What gives you the right to set what you consider to be the line over what I choose as the line?
Does that give either of us the right to shame someone publicly for that? I think it does sometimes, but I don't have a strictly categorical answer.
At what point do you consider the various beliefs indivisible? Maybe you believe in Trump's economic plan, but should you be held responsible if Trump also shoves his social agenda through and hurts millions of people?
The worst part in all this is that Trump has made a bunch of Democrats into litmus-test voters like the Republicans. I hope that the Democrats go back to their diverse cacophony afterward.
> And what if Peter Thiel did say this? What gives you the right to set what you consider to be the line over what I choose as the line?
The thirteenth amendment gives me that right (to choose who I work with.)
Is that right? At what point does that turn into bullying?
I don't have a good answer.
And do be aware that a person who would jail his opponent is never going to be so tolerant of you as you might be of him. It is the position that calls for tolerance only so long as it is weak.
I might suggest that an industry with a very small number of the exact population being targeted should do some serious soul searching about exactly what free speech (if campaign contributions are speech) they are standing by.
But perhaps criticizing someone who hounded Gawker out of existence for its expression is just too oppressive.
I'm pretty sure that comes along with those standard 'human rights' things.
The best way to get someone that according to you is doing something wrong to change their way is by talking to them and arguing with them. The worst way is to isolate them, it will only cement their relationship with the party that you object to stronger because that will be all that remains.
this is just another billionaire wanting his buddy to win so his racist policy against hiring Asians isn't prosecuted.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/the-white-flight-of-...
It's about the intellectual evolution of Derek Black, the son of the creator of the infamous white-power website Stormfront. He grew up believing in and advocating for a lot of very foul ideas. As the article describes it, the key turning point was when someone in his college - even knowing Derek's politics and history - invited him to a weekly Shabbat dinner:
Matthew decided his best chance to affect Derek’s thinking was not to ignore him or confront him, but simply to include him. “Maybe he’d never spent time with a Jewish person before,” Matthew remembered thinking.
The story seems to have a happy ending, with Derek's political about-face. The lesson in here seems incredibly apropos - rather than push out people who have wrongheaded views, pull them in closer and challenge their ideas. Use love instead of hatred.
Are you going to vote for Hillary, who has said she was against gay marriage as recent as 2012. According to your hero plan, you should not have anything to do with her, ever.
There are no unpersons who still participate peacefully in the political process, and it's best to keep it that way—Nazis included, as hard as that is to stomach.
No-platforming isn't just morally wrong, it's tactically wrong too: it only "works" when your group is in power. The moment you lose power, you'll be wishing you hadn't pushed so hard to shut up dissenters.
The more odious someone's political beliefs are, the more important it is they remain in the company of the sober and reasonable: it's the only chance society has to bring them back into the fold without bloodshed.
It's possible to respectfully and courteously disagree with even the most heinous beliefs. Characterization that prevents discourse is a danger to both the sides.
So I have no problem with nazis or other military ideologies - they just arrived at the future first.
At the end it will be us vs them by whatever criteria - it may be trekkies putting whovians in the gas chambers for all we know. I just hope that when the dust settles I will be among the right "us".
So these of my believes make me not care about other peoples ideologies - we are all doomed.
If Peter Thiel backs him, Trump should supposed to be gratefull and Peter Thiel would strengthen his position.
I don't believe he backs Trump as a sane entrepeneur, but as a investor. If Trump wins ( 1 debate could be enough), this is a good investment.
1) Woodrow Wilson -- An avowed racist and segregationist
2) Teddy Roosevelt -- Warmonger (War with spain)
3) Franklin Roosevelt -- Fire bombing of Tokyo as retribution for Pearl Harbor, among other major civilian cities (and internment of Japanese Americans).
4) Harry Truman -- Hiroshima and Nagasaki
5) Dwight Eisenhower -- Korean War
6) John F Kennedy -- Getting involved in Vietnam War
7) Lyndon Johnson -- Continuing the War (Gulf of Tonkin)
8) Richard Nixon -- Expanding war to Cambodia
9) Ronald Regan -- Nicaragua, and other smaller wars, bombing of Qaddafi in Libya as well.
10) George H. Bush -- 1st Iraq war
11) Bill Clinton -- Bombing of Serbia, and launching missiles at Tunisia
12) George W Bush -- Afghanistan and Iraq
13) Obama -- Increasing Drone strikes 10x fold.
Many progressives (Noam Chomsky et al) would consider the above actions corresponding to each president as rising to the level of war crimes. Hence, by this logic, anyone that voted for them is equally culpable. That's nonsense!
My impression is that most vocal progressives (even here in Europe) have stopped caring about the big picture in favour of domestic social justice. Killing a million people abroad = normal establishment politics, saying misogynist crap = unique threat to democracy. It boggles the mind.
Furthermore, the opinions that led to most of those were backed by a significant fraction of the experts in the relevant areas.
Trump, on the other hand, has some positions that are objectively wrong [1]. He has repeatedly claimed that global warming is a hoax and said that the planet is actually freezing. He said that doctors and vaccinations cause autism.
I find that a lot more disturbing and disqualifying.
[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-comments-on...
This could not be more on point. I respect Mark Zuckerberg more for saying this. We may not agree with what people say, but we should fight for their right to say it.
"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."
And even below that limit, even if I stand by the right of people to say stupid and irrespectable things, I stand also by _my_ right to argue them that those things are stupid and irrespectable. (This also means that I am quite open to discuss why this view is wrong. One a bit uncomfortable idea is that this way of thinking may increase polarization of the discussion/society, which is about the last thing we need.)
1. Popper assumes that tolerant and intolerant ideas are easily distinguishable, not intermingled, and that there exists some sort of undisputed authority to make the distinction. Example: one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
2. Suppression of "intolerance" excuse has often been abused by brutal authoritarians to exercise their power.
3. Suppression of ideas deemed "intolerant" often dismisses real underlying issues. For example, some "racist ideas" in this us election cycle are rooted in the fact that there are real "losers" in globalization. It's a lot easier to dismiss someone as a racist than it is to understand and emphasize with where these feelings are actually coming from and try to fix the issue. I believe that racism is more often that not, the symptom of real problems.
2. Brutal authoritarians have also used elections countless times as an excuse to exercise their power. I do not think that makes democracy and elections "idealist non-sense".
3. Does it not make more sense to address the real underlying issues than tolerate bigotry and racism? I would prefer those would be kept separate issues, but to my (obviously tolerant) eyes, it seems more like there are people who really think that intolerance, bigotry and racism are a _solution_ to the underlying problems.
Wouldn't we all! But unfortunately that's not how the real world works. I think you dismissed my point though...
For example, when someone says "build a wall," it's easy just to say "you're racist and hate mexicans." But if you actually let that idea play out, you'll see it's not really about disliking mexicans, it's a response to drug problems in the US, security issues, and an economy that has failed millions (while still succeeding on the whole). I don't doubt there are some pure racist chanting "build a wall" as well, but they are in the minority (no pun intended) and if you actually fix the above concerns a lot less people would be shouting "build a wall".
But my point is, you have to let that "racist" idea be heard to understand the problem before you dismiss it as an "ignorant solution." Again, I believe racism is more often the symptom, than the problem itself.
But that is more or less precisely what Popper says:
"I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise."
Rational argument (in my opinion) here is _exactly_ what you say, racism is typically the symptom, and not the problem, and the problem needs to be solved. But that does not imply that we should somehow applaud racism and bigotry as free speech. And we need to say to the people who claim that racism and bigotry is the solution to the problem that they are wrong and their racism and bigotry is unacceptable. If we want to live in a tolerant society, that is.
It allows people on both sides of the debate to shield themselves behind a persecution complex that prevents their ideas and actions from being examined. I think it's one of the worst tactics related to the extreme polarization of American politics when it comes to the death of rational discourse.
I haven't read much about why Thiel supports Trump, but I'm willing to entertain arguments that whatever he likes about Trump (hypothetically economic policy?) is more important than his sexism. I feel like most people aren't.
If people choose not to do business with Peter Thiel because of his political views they aren't infringing on his right to free speech. It doesn't really make sense for them to do, especially if they are making that decision on behalf of a publicly traded company, but no one is infringing his first amendment rights.
I don't recall any Silicon Valley lynch mobs forming in all that time.
Nor was there much noise about Thiel's support after the sexual-assualt-brag tape was released.
It's only when he gives money that people are up in (very virtual) arms.
Either Thiel's support for Trump makes him a toxic partner, or it doesn't. If it does, and you just started acting on that recently, then please forgive me for suspecting you may be an opportunist.
[edit: speling]
Anyone who hasn't bothered to read Thiel's speech at the RNC, should do so because it's the singularly most coherent thing that happened there. The complaints are mostly all valid. The problem is the concomitant judgement that Trump is the solution to the problems, and I think Thiel is utterly tone deaf when he calls the culture wars fake, or that Trump is trying to end them, rather than take advantage of them with ever better dog whistles.
To say Clinton is incompetent and that it's in plain sight, is ridiculous in comparison to 7.5 years of the unaccountable racist lie that the president is not a natural born citizen, and thus illegitimate, even questioned for 5 years after the birth certificate was produced; culminating in tonight's global fiasco of Trump questioning the trustworthiness and legitimacy of the American electoral system, in advance of the election. That this personality would eventually go there, is what has been in plain sight.
The problem Republicans have, this is not limited to Peter Thiel by far, is how to extract themselves from this mess. It is really a triage moment, they have all been damaged by this, it's just a question of how much they try to paper over what has happened, or get dragged down in an irreparable way, i.e. Mike Pence is now irreparably damaged goods, unless of course we are in fact talking about an autocracy, in which case he's in a very good position. Maybe.
Don't like Clinton? Fine. Vote for Eric McMullan, looks like he may very well take Utah. Write in your own name. It is not credible to support a candidate who considers elections a fraud just because he doesn't win.
I don't think it's reasonable that he wait a week or two to state disagreement with such a complete departure from this norm. Thiel stuck his neck out, on stage, at the RNC. Today Trump is saying he'll accept the outcome if he wins. That is not the same thing as presuming a fair election, and complete willingness to concede if he's the loser. The language proposes, ipso facto the election is not fair, if he does not win.
I do think Democrats can overstate their position by suggesting its so easy to challenge electoral outcome legitimacy with one candidate's bullshit rhetoric, however. For all its warts, the president is not directly elected, it's the electoral college that certifies the winner on Dec 19.
Drumpf is a racist, misogynistic, Islamophobic, anti-LGBTQ fascist. People who espouse this sort of hatred are fundamentally opposed to the ideas of freedom, equality and diversity upon which this country was founded. Those of us who value the political freedoms of ALL Americans -- including Muslim-Americans, Latinos, and various other groups Drumpf has vilified -- have a responsibility to take a strong stand against that sort of hatred and say no, we won't accept it in our places of work, in our neighborhoods, our places of worship, nor within our political process.
If someone is so attracted to a political process comprised of hate and excluding people based upon the color of their skin or their religious practices, I'd encourage them to move to Russia or Iran. It's 2016, that shit does not work in America anymore, as the Drumpfkins are going to learn on November 8th.
Did you complain about "blackmail" then? Or do the dynamics change when it involves groups?
In that case extend the above to include the Weathermen or Wright's Church both of which were raised by any number of people any number of times.
Does it only make a person worse if/when it conflicts with your values?
By extension of this logic, are people who boycott a company for whatever reason, guilty of theft?
If I'm to understand that Trump doesn't conflict with my values than you have really not understood my position.
I suppose that would be one interpretation, and I apologize for phrasing my query so poorly as to encourage such a perception, but the question could be generalized to any number of situations, agents, and agencies, no? In my defense, I did pose a question about Ayers and Wright illustrating how it might apply in another case where actors and agencies were different.
I was actually interested in whether or not the position you've taken on this matter is influenced by your own political values. It seems that would create a bit of a paradox. Those people taking issue with Thiel for political reasons and voicing an opinion on the matter thus pushing, shaming, and even blackmailing YC are "worse" presumably for acting on their political values. Yet you seem to see no issue with engaging in similar behavior against those people for doing so, which seems rooted in your own political values, if I understood your argument correctly. That is a lot of assumption and presumption, though.
I suppose I should just come out and ask. Why are people voicing their opinions, or "trying to push/shame/blackmail YC" worse, here? What exactly makes them worse? Worse how, exactly? Is this a categorical estimation of people's overall value as human beings? As tools of the economy? As social actors?
I've never ever been able to get someone to see things my way by forcing them to break their connection with a person or they'd lose me.
But I have been able to convince people to switch to another political candidate by systematic analysis of what made them choose their favorite over someone more moderate (here in NL we have a bit of a problem, politically speaking).
If instead I would have told them if they voted 'x' they'd have to stop seeing me I wouldn't have achieved anything.
Polarization and isolation are the tools of the demagogue, and the wannabe dictator. They have no place in a functioning democracy, and as of now the US still seems to be one of those. All bets are off if trump clearly loses the election and refuses to concede, an option he apparently explicitly keeps open. That's flirting with civil war and quite amazing given that there is zero precedent for any of the other candidates in the history of the states doing anything like that and as far as I'm concerned for that reason alone Trump should lose by a very large margin.
Anyway, as for Thiel, which is how this whole discussion started, he's the person to pressure, if you feel that he mis-applied his funds. Nothing a counter-donation to the other camp couldn't fix to achieve parity, and a way for Thiel to escape all this without too much egg on his face.
Intriguing. So an application of "if you have to argue, you've already lost"?
While I can respect that as generally true, I must respectfully disagree if speaking in absolutes. I realize the plural of data isn't anecdote, I've some personal experiences that would lead me to believe otherwise. Given enough time and discussion, I've pulled a few extreme sorts toward more moderate perspectives.
> I've never ever been able to get someone to see things my way by forcing them to break their connection with a person or they'd lose me.
This is a pretty key point here. Forcing people to do things doesn't work terribly well. I must ask if such a strategy has really been pursued? I've seen people criticize the connection between YC and Thiel, or Facebook and Thiel, given his politics, but I don't think I've seen many people actually issue an ultimatum.
> But I have been able to convince people to switch to another political candidate by systematic analysis of what made them choose their favorite over someone more moderate (here in NL we have a bit of a problem, politically speaking).
I can appreciate this point. =]
> If instead I would have told them if they voted 'x' they'd have to stop seeing me I wouldn't have achieved anything.
I'm guessing I must have missed something along the way. I'm sure some people have issued some such demands, there is always that one guy. Still I would honestly be surprised if more people were trying to force the issue than not. Does this run counter to your own experience?
> Polarization and isolation are the tools of the demagogue, and the wannabe dictator.
I couldn't agree more.
> They have no place in a functioning democracy, and as of now the US still seems to be one of those.
This point might be debatable, but why quibble unnecessarily?
> All bets are off if trump clearly loses the election and refuses to concede, an option he apparently explicitly keeps open.
I just can't even begin to clearly elucidate my feelings on this matter, so I will just note my agreement.
> That's flirting with civil war and quite amazing given that there is zero precedent for any of the other candidates in the history of the states doing anything like that and as far as I'm concerned for that reason alone Trump should lose by a very large margin.
This is a tough issue. Gore didn't immediately concede in the 2000 election and many were early that he threw in the towel so early given all of the documented irregularities of that election. As well armed as Trump's followers may be, I don't think they want to come to blows with the U.S. military.
> Anyway, as for Thiel, which is how this whole discussion started, he's the person to pressure, if you feel that he mis-applied his funds.
In the U.S. exerting pressure on associated businesses and organizations isn't uncommon. See Chick-fil-A and its war against LGBTs for example. Many boycotted, while many others people went out of their way to frequent the chain. Ugghhh. What's more is these tendencies seem to be accelerating. It's actually a fairly frightening byproduct of the aforementioned polarization.
I don't expect ties need be severed over the matter, though I don't think it unreasonable to expect organizations in which he participates, especially those of differing values, to make their own values known.
In any case, thanks for elaborating on your perspective.
Regards!
No, arguing is fine. But strong-arm tactics are not, that just leads to people digging in (and in a way rightly so, their reaction will have to do more with the tactics than with the subject at hand and that's why I feel this is totally unproductive and even if it was productive I'd still disagree with it, think of blackmail: extremely effective but morally wrong.)
> Gore didn't immediately concede in the 2000 election and many were early that he threw in the towel so early given all of the documented irregularities of that election.
Yes, I still wonder what wisdom would have been there. But history seems to show that particular hump was taken without too much trouble.
> As well armed as Trump's followers may be, I don't think they want to come to blows with the U.S. military.
There are a lot of idiots out there, and just like they would not want to come to blows with the US military I'd hope that the US military would not want to have a direct confrontation with the citizen either. To make things a little bit worse, you can probably expect a roughly proportional number of those military people to be Trump supporters...
> I don't expect ties need be severed over the matter, though I don't think it unreasonable to expect organizations in which he participates, especially those of differing values, to make their own values known.
I don't expect that either, but I do think Thiel is going to be open to reasonable debate, he's anything but stupid.
> In any case, thanks for elaborating on your perspective.
> Regards!
Thank you as well!
Hmm, really? My fellow liberals would do well to recall that the U.S. military is, by and large, composed of people who have a conservative viewpoint. All that demonization of the military and police that the left has unwisely been doing these past years might just come home to roost in a most unpleasant way.
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/election/2016/05...
http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/this-poll-of-the-us-mi...
I would trust five military men over five civilians when it came to protecting my rights.
I don't think anti-war qualifies as anti-military. In fact, anti-war is a pro-military position. As the old saying goes: "The soldier above all others prays for peace, for it is the soldier who must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war."
Re: "I don't think anti-war qualifies as anti-military.", I rather doubt the actual service members themselves see liberals that way. Being anti-war, of necessity, comes with views that prevent the military from doing its job, whether it be budget cuts or political restraints that risk lives or interfere with legitimate military goals during ongoing operations.
Following this belief—which is merely my opinion—people should not be asking his business contacts to explain his political actions. That belongs to the Republican voter base, and how they allowed a candidate such as Donald Trump to be the their presidential candidate in the first place.
All of this publicity seems to be generated for opportunistic causes, where some business people (e.g. Ellen Pao) can feel morally correct even if they're not associated with Thiel.
Edit: Also I find it ironic how people are trying to exclude, if I may use that term, a person criticized for supporting a candidate who is exclusive, under the justification of diversity.
Let's NOT separate them. Thiel is CEO of Palantir and heavily involved in Bilderberg--two institutions which are anathema to what the openness and democratic institutions a lot of us on the Internet stand for.
There are plenty of reasons to oppose Thiel even without the Trump donation.
I'm very relieved to hear this.
In March 1933 half of Germany voted for Hitler's party[1]. Would Zuckerberg's statement stand in that scenario as well?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March...
So yeah, I think Zuckerberg's statement stands up well even in the face of 20th century history.
Within two years 9000 of them had been rehired to try to repair the damage that their dismissal had caused.
Sometimes one just has to be pragmatic and put subjective opinion aside. Such tolerance doesn't equate to approval.
Isn't this the same person that went on a fishing campaign for free money from her employer under the guise of sexism? IIRC it was shot down by the courts and Y Combinator should have severed ties with her then since false accusations do much worse damage to the fight for equality than doing nothing at all.
Where is the outrage over YC associating with her?
That's a misrepresentation and a half...
Edit: Opening the web link in a private window allowed me to read the article. Thanks.