No, Facebook, ‘Diversity’ Doesn’t Explain Your Support of Thiel | Hacker News Reader

No, Facebook, ‘Diversity’ Doesn’t Explain Your Support of Thiel

wired.com

17 pointsjdp233 comments

This is nonsense. Diversity isn't just how you look or who you are attracted to. When tolerance is only for people who agree with you, or who don't disagree too far, it's bullshit. They even get to the root of the issue, which is whether Thiel is endorsing the horrible things about Trump, or supporting the Republican candidate in spite of them:

>Yes, plenty of people on Facebook and in the real world might support Trump for reasons that, in Zuckerberg’s words, “do not involve racism, sexism, xenophobia or accepting sexual assault.” And polling shows many of those supporters do not come from the country’s privileged classes. As Altman argues, having an institutional policy to fire them from their jobs would be a “dangerous path” to follow. But Thiel is a member of the Silicon Valley elite, a billionaire uses his fortune to ensure his views are heard and promoted. He is the opposite of marginalized, and arguing that kicking him off Facebook’s board is the same thing as firing any given person for their political views is a false equivalence.

The argument seems to be "Yeah that's a valid point, except that he's richer than most Trump supporters." Trump is awful, but this is BS.

Every time I see the word "diversity" used in this tone, I'm reminded of Vaclav Havel's brilliant essay, The Power of the Powerless:

http://www.vaclavhavel.cz/showtrans.php?cat=eseje&val=2_aj_e...

The manager of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: "Workers of the world, unite!" Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moment's thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean?

This writer translated Havel's essay into modern American. Very few words had to change:

https://paworldandtimes.wordpress.com/2016/01/14/the-office-...

Reading around the other posts by that "translator", they sound like a wonderful person with a perfectly balanced attitude towards people of color, immigrants, women, etc.

(Illustrative excerpt:

"Complex dialectic is best saved for fellow red-pilled folks because someone who is new to our thinking will forget the wonkier points later. Short, quippy summations are more effective with newbs because they are memorable and they define the big picture. Example:

A questioning friend: 'Why is it bad to let women vote?'

You: 'Because men vote for liberty and women vote for tyranny.'

Friend: 'How so?'

You: 'Women instinctively submit to power. So whichever party appears to be dominant, especially if its rule is heavy-handed and its figurehead is charismatic, women will support that party. Men are less risk-averse, we chafe under overbearing authority, and we take a longer view of things.'

Another example:

Friend: 'So why are our governments doing this to us? What’s their motive?'

You: 'White men hang tyrants. Muds stab each other over sneakers.'"

This particular excerpt from https://paworldandtimes.wordpress.com/2016/09/25/we-would-re..., but every post is like that)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com