further_tech

Honestly, you are either not intelligent or actively trying to distort my answers.

1) The 1st simply gives you freedom of speech. It doesn't matter if it is a gossip about someone.

2) I clearly was referring to the article exposing Thiel as gay ( his motivation for this). Because it clearly did not openly humiliated him, his overstated battle clearly shows an inflated ego.

Honestly, your answer and all the others sadly shows how rationality is just an "extra factor" when a "tech guru" is criticized. I expected more from this community.

I'm not deciding for him. I'm being commonsensical by saying his "punishment" was not justifiable because of this article.

For 99.9% of human beings, such article would never make someone spend enough money to put this newspaper out of business.

1) First Amendment. Have you ever heard about celebrity gossips and VH1?

2) If it was offensive to Thiel, he clearly has an ego problem. Regardless, the article did not ATTACK him or MOCKED his sexuality. Any normal gay person would find other means to deal with this.

The same could be said about any media company.

He did not "righted a wrong". This was a vicious "eye for an eye".

The article is making an argument (Thiel shows why tech billionaires are the new robber barons) and, regardless of the author's motives or background, I analyze his arguments.

Claiming "isn't saying he's wrong because of his motives" is just reinforcing what I'm trying to say.

Have you seen Gawker's piece on Thiel? (http://gawker.com/335894/peter-thiel-is-totally-gay-people)

Surely broke his privacy, but by no means was it offensive.

I get how HOGAN would be mad, but this seems like a whining billionaire without better ideas for his money. (irony much?)

Even if so, I'd rather move beyond the Ad hominem.

> WTF

I don't understand your indignation. Is it that obvious to you the Valley can solve ALL human problems?

>replicate that formula at scale

This doesn't help anyone; it only makes them feel worse. You will only make people have even more superficial relationships - the last thing a depressed alienated individual needs.

Empathetic bonds do not have a "template" - it is based in the individuality of each person in a group. There is not a single statistical model at scale that is able to predict what can take you out of isolation and alienation.

> I think giving people a way to meet over and over again that's both comfortable and convenient is what is needed.

Just confirms what I argued. They crave real emotional bonds, not an easy "fast-food way" to talk to strangers. Long-term relationships are complicated, deep and time-consuming.

Maybe people can FUNDAMENTALLY change that with multiple collective actions, throughout hundreds, perhaps thousands, of years.

Overfunded startups cannot change that.

Overfunded startups can only provide another pill to ignore the problem (making it even worse).

There is no force to join a religious community. In this case, people have been doing this to deal with the alienation they face.

Also, your second argument is ridiculous.

Say you and me go to a party. We both decided this on our own. That doesn't mean we share A SINGLE value.

No. Please read more intelligently.

I didn't use it to refer to "true Christians", but as an ontological description of Christianity.

Well... that's an extremely arrogant question.

Can a startup change the core of human nature? Can it change thousands of years of Philosophy? Can it change our socio-economic background? Can it change history?

If you can, then... dear Lord... this is Apotheosis.

At its core, Christians are defined by fraternity, equality, goodness, etc.

Maybe some atheists also have these, but there's not a guarantee all act this way.

IMO, before founding an "atheist church", I'd at least establish "secular values" and find a community around it.

EDIT: I was called a "delusional idiot" for claiming Christians are defined by fraternity, equality, goodness.

I'm referring to the SYSTEM OF VALUES. Something must be aspired for and desired in social interactions. I'm well aware of "hypocritical Christians", it has nothing to do with them.

If you cannot understand that, I'm not a "delusional idiot"; you are just ignorant.

Startups cannot do a thing.

Startups cannot change the fact people abandon their elderly parents. They'll just make it worse.

Startups cannot make people less egotistical or make them think about the other. They'll just make it worse.

Startups cannot take the existential anxiety and anger from you. They'll just make it worse.

Your argument is dominated by pragmatism, which often obfuscates what religion is all about.

Great communities are a consequence of the chosen lifestyle and morality of religious people. You could gather just as many atheists and the response wouldn't be the same.

EDIT: I'm not saying an atheist community would be WORSE than Christianity.

I'm saying it would be DIFFERENT from the Christian one.