
How Silicon Valley Treats a Trump Backer: Peter Thiel - spuiszis
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/20/technology/how-silicon-valley-treats-a-trump-backer-peter-thiel.html?ref=dealbook
======
DelaneyM
I'm a gay female entrepreneur. I would be happy to work with, or take
investment from, Peter Thiel.

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.

~~~
tensor
As a counter point, I'm not gay nor female, but an entrepreneur. Hopefully
that doesn't lessen my voice.

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.

~~~
anondon
Like you, I don't agree with Pieter Thiel on a lot of issues including his
support for Trump. But when you work with him as an entrepreneur, how do his
political beliefs, his position on science vs industry matter? If his
positions on certain topics go against yours _and_ affects your startup
negatively, then it makes sense to not work with him. But deciding not to work
with him only because of his opinions does not make sense to me, though it is
still your choice. And asking other people not to associate or work with
Pieter because you don't agree with him is unreasonable. It's everyone's
individual choice.

~~~
thesimpsons1022
it affects you morally. one could say the same about a pedophile or rapist or
racist. let's say someone was all 3 of those but you knew it wouldn't affect
the business you do with them. would you do it? this isn't to equate them but
it is to see if you argument holds up in an edge case. 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. but some people don't care
about morals at all and only care about profit so to them it may not matter.

~~~
anondon
> one could say the same about a pedophile or rapist or racist.

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?

~~~
thesimpsons1022
half the country? first it's only expected voters which is like 40 pct of
america. then only around 30 pct of those support trump. so yes i'm fine not
associating with 12 pct of people.

~~~
flukus
That's voters. Trump supporters are presumably much higher.

------
dannylandau
While this subject matter has been covered to exhaustion in a previous post, I
believe it is a very dangerous slippery slope to boycott Peter Thiel. If one
ostracizes a person based on their political beliefs (and contributions), then
we will need to review every election going back decades. Just a few examples
off the top of my head:

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!

~~~
gurkendoktor
Thanks for bringing up foreign policy!

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.

------
notliketherest
“We care deeply about diversity,” Mr. Zuckerberg wrote in an internal Facebook
post to employees. “That’s easy to say when it means standing up for ideas you
agree with. It’s a lot harder when it means standing up for the rights of
people with different viewpoints to say what they care about. That’s even more
important.”

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.

~~~
beefield
I agree - up to a certain point. I think Popper has formulated this well[1]:

"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]
[https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Karl_Popper](https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Karl_Popper)

~~~
spaceflunky
That quote from Popper is straight-up idealist non-sense. The problems I see
are:

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.

~~~
beefield
1\. I do not think that the precise distinction of tolerant and intolerant
ideas was Popper's point. His point was that there _exists_ so intolerant
ideas that a tolerant society must be ready to suppress them. Obviously where
the precise limit for intolerance in practice is, is a question of ongoing and
endless discussion and not a question with easy and clear-cut answer.

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.

~~~
spaceflunky
> I would prefer those would be kept separate issues

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.

~~~
beefield
> 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."

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.

------
biztos
Here's the part I don't understand: Peter Thiel has been a high-profile
supporter of Trump for a long time, long after Trump publicly said and did the
things that make many people see his candidacy as an existential threat to
American democracy.

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]

~~~
cmurf
Quite right. $1.25 million may very well be a drop in the bucket in comparison
to appearing on stage at the Republican National Convention. That in-person
appeal to Trump, I think, is much more problematic. Yet it has not generated a
fraction of the outrage a campaign contribution has. So I'll charge Silicon
Valley is obsessed with money. Big news there.

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.

~~~
biztos
This is just idle speculation but it has occurred to me that Thiel may be in
the "burn it down" camp. He's rich enough to probably make it through a bit of
depression, anarchy and/or world war unscathed, and maybe reckless enough to
yearn for that show.

~~~
cmurf
It's completely reasonable to be troubled by the lack of a repudiation, even
if it's not appropriate to deduce motive.

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.

------
jacquesm
All those people trying to push/shame/blackmail YC (and others) into severing
ties with Thiel are in my opinion worse than Thiel.

~~~
throwaway274739
This tired argument is based upon the assumption that tolerance requires one
to tolerate the intolerant. Since the vast majority of progressives reject
this, your argument carries no weight.

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.

~~~
flukus
That's exactly what tolerance is. Tolerance is defined by accepting those you
disagree with. I'm pro gay marriage, that doesn't mean I'm tolerant of it.

------
CN7R
Let's separate Peter Thiel the businessman and Peter Thiel the political
donor. Whatever negative things he does in politics does not detract the
achievements he accomplished in business.

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.

~~~
bsder
> Let's separate Peter Thiel the businessman and Peter Thiel the political
> donor. Whatever negative things he does in politics does not detract the
> achievements he accomplished in business.

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.

------
meric
_“We can’t create a culture that says it cares about diversity and then
excludes almost half the country because they back a political candidate,”
[Zuckerberg] wrote._

I'm very relieved to hear this.

------
DVassallo
> "We can't create a culture that says it cares about diversity and then
> excludes almost half the country because they back a political candidate."

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...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933)

~~~
dingaling
In 2003, 15000 Baath Party members were dismissed from their posts in Iraqi
government ministries because of their 'evil' political affiliation.

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.

~~~
DVassallo
I don't think there's any ambiguity that Peter Thiel, the subject of this
article, is approving Trump, and not just tolerating him.

------
hueving
>Earlier this week, Ellen Pao, the head of Project Include, an organization
that is trying to increase diversity in the tech industry’s work force, said
her group was severing ties with Y Combinator because of Mr. Thiel’s
involvement.

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?

~~~
gotofritz
> free money from her employer under the guise of sexism

That's a misrepresentation and a half...

~~~
hueving
It's what the court decided.

------
gotofritz
Freedom works both ways. He's free to voice his opinions and back it with
money. We are free to ostracise him if we find those opinions horrifying.

------
MK999
Maybe it just illustrates that tolerance is a sham and one ideology will
conquer the others.

------
lovelearning
Googling this article title shows the article excerpt. But opening the search
result shows a login dialog. Isn't this against Google's SEO rules?

~~~
spuiszis
I didn't have the same experience, although I am using a couple AdBlockers.
You might have a cookie already on your browser to trigger that login modal.
There's also a possibility a major publisher like the NYT is trying to close
that Google loophole.

~~~
lovelearning
Thanks for the tip! You were right about the cookie. Clearing browser history
got me 10 free articles, additional googled links showed the dialog again.

------
anondon
Nytimes asks me to login to read the article.

Edit: Opening the web link in a private window allowed me to read the article.
Thanks.

~~~
anindha
Click web above and you can read it.

~~~
jacquesm
And if that doesn't work shift-ctrl-p, then web

