Hacker News Reader

Comment by tuna-piano | Hacker News Reader

I feel like we're living in different universes.

-You seem to say diversity is good, but not diversity of political thought?

-What are Thiels stances on equality that you see as so abhorrent?

-He was involved (as a financier) of a lawsuit... I struggle to see the huge moral deal here. He didn't decide the outcome - six jurors did, abiding by the laws, in a court![1]

-Is being a strong supporter of Ayn Rand a good reason that someone shouldn't be involved in Silicon Valley?

[1]http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/gawker-trial-jurors-made...

View on HN

Why even bother? All this comment you've replied to actually does is prove Thiel's point. It still amazes me that the irony is so lost on them..

Haha.

Peter Thiel - "People here don't accept conservative ideas"

Commentor - "I love diversity, but get the hell out with those opinions!"

...

Obviously there are some opinions I find abhorrent and wouldn't want to be associated with (Nazis, etc). However, I think both that I'm more tolerant of offensive opinions than the commentor, and that I also find really nothing very offensive about what I've read about Thiel.

Thiel doesn't seem that far right to me, and has been ostracized. But is any thought too far-left to be accepted in SV? You can support Venezuelan policies, Cuban policies, taxing rich people 90%, racism against whites and asians... and no one's trying to kick them out of civil society.

Your list of straw-men is incredible. I'm certain I can find active criticism from Silicon Valley regarding all of those topics.

Yes, I think it's socially ok to criticize the extreme left (all my examples were extreme left positions).

I do not think it's socially ok in SV to be more than a little conservative. After all, companies Thiel was associated with were pressured to kick him out just for the fact that he supported a candidate that was voted for by ~50% of the country! Maybe that's because of Trump's other non-political characteristics, but I'm not so sure.

That's not irony, that's the paradox of tolerance [1]. An open society can tolerate all opinions except for opinions directed against an open society.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women - two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians -have rendered the notion of "capitalist democracy" into an oxymoron.

http://www.azquotes.com/quote/597528

It’s funny the way that supporters of Ayn Rand always seem to be keen on using the courts to get their way on things unrelated to their business. Just like John Galt.

And diversity of thought is for new interesting ideas, not discredited old ones.

Your first point, while a good observation on the hypocrisy of Objectivists, is also a facile argument akin to when people can't criticize (something|a philosophy|a phenomenon), or some part of that thing, because they benefit from certain aspects of it.

The second point is just bad – judge a thought on its own merits and implications, not fashionability or novelty.

> You seem to say diversity is good, but not diversity of political thought?

Encouraging diversity is a means of letting those who have been marginalized from positions of power for centuries have a seat at the table. Are there similarly marginalized political opinions? I don't think Thiel or others who think like him are in short supply of power. The idea that conservative political opinions are suppressed is so ridiculous, especially as Thiel's party is in control of all branches of the federal US government and in most states. It is perfectly reasonable to have a local imbalance of opinion as long as in general power is not withheld for one side.

How are you going to bring about diversity of political thought? Quotas? Positive discrimination? Stiffing liberal political speech?

The marketplace of ideas is against you: deal with it, or turn to 'liberal' solutions :p

How about actual open mindedness, grace, and rational discourse? Everything doesn't have to be about rules and legislation. Let people be wrong but still humans sometimes.

Sometimes is feels like we're in a neopuritan age, complete with analogs to The Crucible and The Scarlet Letter, but the new sins are sins of thought and speech, not the occult or sex.

Well, open mindedness needs to come from both sides. Being told you're wrong is still part of rational discourse. Conservatives are just not used to be argued with, that's the problem.

I am completely ignorant on things relating to Peter, so I have some questions:

Is he a dramatic diva, or a pragmatic type?

Is he moving to LA for lifestyle reasons or business reasons?

What is his “next big thing”

Reply on news.ycombinator.com