
Peter Thiel Explains Himself on Trump - corbinpage
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/fashion/peter-thiel-donald-trump-silicon-valley-technology-gawker.html?_r=0
======
ryandamm
So, Thiel has done an excellent job of cementing his reputation as a
contrarian.

But I'd invite any startup founder to think long and hard about whether you'd
want to be associated with him. I read this interview, like many others, and
know that we wouldn't get along. So I'm not going to have him as an investor.

I could enumerate reasons why, but here's the bottom line: reflexive
contrarianism is just nihilism. Beneath the contrarian tag, I don't see much
of substance. And certainly nothing that resonates with me, or that I agree
with.

Beyond a certain point, maybe after a certain age, you've got to actually
stand for something, not just against things. I don't get any of that from
this article, or from Thiel generally.

~~~
jacobolus
Thiel stands tall for (his own personal) profit. That’s one kind of
“something”.

------
ivraatiems
> I note that several Silicon Valley companies have pre-emptively said they
> will not help build a Muslim registry for the Trump administration. Will
> Palantir, the data-mining company of which Mr. Thiel was a founder, and
> whose clients include the N.S.A., the C.I.A. and the F.B.I., be involved in
> that? (Palantir’s C.E.O., Alex Karp, sat in at the Trump tech meeting.)

> “We would not do that,” Mr. Thiel says flatly.

Mr. Thiel, I don't believe you.

------
thr423
As someone from post-communist country, I find tone of the article a bit
creepy. He has to 'explain himself' to whom? And for what? We had single party
system for 50 years, it did not worked out that well.

> _suggest that Mr. Thiel was not even a gay man, because he did not “embrace
> the struggle.”_

Political preference is more important than sexual orientation, when deciding
if someone is gay???? wtf?

~~~
ryandamm
That sounds logical absent any context, but context matters. Thiel took a very
public stance on a very controversial figure. A figure that's controversial
for good reasons: things he's done, things he's said, and things he says he'll
do.

And Thiel's in a public role. So his actions are advertising for his various
ventures. To the extent I'm a 'customer' for his various products and
services, I've taken note. This is a very democratic and capitalist response,
I believe.

I'm also not sure why you mention a single party system. Asking a political
donor and public speaker to explain his position is very democratic, and I'd
expect it in a multiparty democracy, not just an explicitly two-party system
like ours.

In fact, in a liberal democracy, we should be working to preserve our right to
demand those kinds of answers. I'm old enough to remember a time before
Citizens United and Super PACs; I believe politics should be conducted in
public. Do you disagree?

~~~
andrenth
When was any public figure called to explain themselves for voting Obama?

------
colemickens
> _" When I remark that President Obama had eight years without any ethical
> shadiness, Mr. Thiel flips it, noting: “But there’s a point where no
> corruption can be a bad thing. It can mean that things are too boring.”_

..... I literally don't even know what to say to that.

> _" Mr. Thiel says: “On the one hand, the tape was clearly offensive and
> inappropriate. At the same time, I worry there’s a part of Silicon Valley
> that is hyper-politically correct about sex. One of my friends has a theory
> that the rest of the country tolerates Silicon Valley because people there
> just don’t have that much sex. They’re not having that much fun.”_

People get upset due to a man claiming he can grab women's genitals because he
has power and Thiel tries to write that off as "hyper-poltiically-correct"?
It's not even a little "political correct". It's common god damn decency to
call that behavior sexual assault.

So shameful.

~~~
colemickens
I wish the people downvoting this had the courage to say why they think
sexually assaulting people is fine. And if you don't, then why downvote?

I'd love an answer to this, but have zero expectation of anyone answering in
good faith.

~~~
reddytowns
It's called context. Surely you've said or done something that others disagree
with. I don't think Donald Trump left a scar of psychologically traumatized
women across the country as the public reaction to that comment seems to say.

What do you think he did that really caused anyone some real harm?

------
fjdlwlv
Overlong article that says that Thiel went with Trump because Trump's "stock"
was undervalued due to people opposed Trump's behavior and agenda, so Thiel
saw a niche were he could get an edge due to lack of competition. Also some
shots at Silicon Valley for having too much social principles (egalitarianism
/ political correctness) that clouds their business sense.

Plus some handwaving that everything bad or dangerous about Trump isn't a big
deal.

------
shaldengeki
Dupe:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13378029](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13378029)

------
HaveCourage
Peter Thiel is a visionary. His scholarship fund accelerates kids lives into
what they're passionate about instead of seeing them waste years in college.

He funds longevity, seasteading, and promotes people being definitive in their
goals and working on things no one else is. He also personally funded the hunt
for justice against an evil rag hiding behind genuine journalistic
protections.

If you're on the wrong side of an issue from Peter Thiel, it's not because
he's being reflexively contrarian, it's because he could write a 100 page
thoughtful essay on why his position is better than any alternative.

The reason that Peter Thiel seems so contrarian is because so many other
people are so cowardly. Shouldn't more billionaires be crushing bastards?
Shouldn't more billionaires be funding medical research? Shouldn't more
billionaires be publishing books to motivate the masses to create themselves
the future that has been only dreamed of for the last few decades?

On the short list of people in this world who are doing a really really great
job with what they have, Peter Thiel is at the top of my list.

Now the caveats. Violations of the 4th amendment suck, and if Palantir is part
of them, it's not great. Trump is clearly not the best the business world had
to offer. Christianity, not so fabulous.

I consider the man a legend and hope to see great things from him.

~~~
solipsism
Wow, you've certainly drunk some koolaid.

 _He funds seasteading_

No he doesn't. He's all talk in that regard. What progress has actually been
produced?

 _He also personally funded the hunt for justice against an evil rag hiding
behind genuine journalistic protections._

He _personally_ funded it, you say, as if it was some selfless act. He
_personally_ funded it because he had a very _personal_ grudge. Not because he
cares about journalism.

 _Shouldn 't more billionaires be funding medical research? _

Some are. Peter Theil is only funding medical research that has the potential
to help him personally though.

You keep talking about this Ayn Randian as an altruistic figure, it's weird.

 _Violations of the 4th amendment suck, and if Palantir is part of them, it 's
not great. Trump is clearly not the best the business world had to offer.
Christianity, not so fabulous._

Hmmm. Does _If you 're on the wrong side of an issue from Peter Thiel, it's
not because he's being reflexively contrarian, it's because he could write a
100 page thoughtful essay on why his position is better than any alternative._
only apply if it's not a position you are personally against?

~~~
HaveCourage
I think seasteading is stupid, however it shows a desire to experiment with
governance itself.

Percentage wise how many bastards are crushed out of selflessness compared to
vendetta? I think you'll find that the extra satisfaction of a grudge is
needed to tip people into the honorable action.

Wouldn't any research Thiel funded that helped himself also help other 50 year
old white guys? What's wrong with helping 50 year old white guys? (who will be
60-70 when the therapies are likely available)

If government surveillance is an commonly emerging property of modern
governments, it could be said that doing it well instead of poorly may allow
us to restrict its scope more. Thus better searching of the already never
erasable data is better than gathering more data and searching it more poorly.
Thus I have no evidence of Palantir doing anything wrong, however, I'm keeping
an eye out.

~~~
solipsism
_If government surveillance is an commonly emerging property of modern
governments, it could be said that doing it well instead of poorly may allow
us to restrict its scope more. Thus better searching of the already never
erasable data is better than gathering more data and searching it more
poorly._

Wow. That rationalization is worthy of Thiel himself!

------
evanb
> If there’s no conflict of interest, it’s often because you’re just not
> interested.

The opposite of "interested" in "conflict of interest" is "disinterested", not
"uninterested".

------
artur_makly
"On the other hand, I was totally convinced that there were W.M.D.s in Iraq in
2002, 2003" \-- wow i now have even less respect for him. unless he is lying.

------
earthly10x
Thiel's responses communicated that he is beyond the point of no return with
the trump problem. He can only say good things, almost like politician
himself. Too bad.

~~~
vixen99
Had Clinton won I guess countless people would be beyond the point of no
return with the Hillary problem.

