
‘We Care Deeply About Diversity’: Zuckerberg Defends Thiel’s Ties to Trump - jdp23
http://www.mediaite.com/online/we-care-deeply-about-diversity-zuckerberg-defend-facebook-board-member-peter-thiels-ties-to-trump/
======
tenpies
I wonder if this marks the point where diversity (of thought) is officially a
luxury afforded only to the wealthy. After all, this is the same Zuckerberg
that warned employees that replacing "black" with "all" in "black lives
matter" was racist and grounds for termination. This is the same Facebook that
is deeply preoccupied with hiring non-white/Asian males regardless of
intellectual background.

If a lowly employee had publicly made a donation to Trump's campaign would we
see the same statement from Zuckerberg, or would that employee's time at
Facebook come to an end at the next HR-approved opportunity?

~~~
poshli
Replacing "black" with "all" in the statement "black lives matter" reveals an
astounding lack of knowledge of history. I'm not sure if it's racist. Maybe
'totally ignorant'? I hope the totally ignorant are on a different team.

~~~
andrei_says_
Let's not forget the silent ", too." At the end of the statement.

Black lives matter, too. Please stop executing us, jailing us, abusing us,
beating us, underpaying us, stereotyping us.

We deserve the safety, humane treatment and respect for basic rights that are
already available to others.

Hope that clarifies the statement for anyone who still feels/wants to feel
confused or outraged by the exclusivity.

------
snowwrestler
Diversity of thought is not itself a good thing. That is, a group with more
opinions among its members is not necessarily any better / more moral / more
effective than a group with fewer opinions.

Facebook is not "stronger" than the Democratic National Committee or the ACLU
or Heritage Foundation because it has a broader array of political opinions
among its staff and leadership than those groups do. The organizations simply
have different reasons for existing.

What we should concern ourselves with as a society is _freedom_ of thought,
freedom of expression, freedom of association. This is different from
diversity. In fact these freedoms eventually reduce diversity of thought, as
we influence each other.

For example, the belief that slavery should be legal is no longer widely held
in the U.S. That is a reduction in "thought diversity" from 160 years ago. And
I highly doubt that Mark Zuckerberg would keep a board member who advocated
for the return of slavery, in the name of "diversity of thought."

The freedoms listed above include the freedoms to disagree, to dissociate. It
would not be unpatriotic or somehow wrong for Facebook to break ties with
Thiel based on political disagreement. After all Zuckerberg has already done
the opposite: he has sunk millions into efforts to convince the country to
pass immigration reform. This despite knowing that a huge number of Facebook
customers (and perhaps staff) don't want immigration reform.

If it's ok to create organizational relationships based on shared political
beliefs, I don't see how it's wrong to break relationships based on political
beliefs.

So: I find the appeal to "diversity of thought" to be not very compelling. The
reality is that Zuckerberg probably thinks that cutting off Thiel would cause
himself and his company more harm than good.

~~~
ThomPete
Diversity is the very reason you and I even exist.

So whether you like it or not it's one of the best things if you care about
progress of any sorts.

~~~
snowwrestler
Let's say Facebook added David Duke to their board. That would significantly
increase the diversity of thought: Duke would bring many ideas and beliefs to
the board that the current board members don't hold. Would that be better or
worse for social progress?

See, social progress is not just a spreading-out of more and more and more
social ideas. It is a definite direction. Less slavery, not more. More
tolerance, not less. Less sexual assault, not more.

Social progress requires decisions and commitments. It requires people to
change their minds, which means discarding one idea for another. Not trying to
hold more and more contradictory ideas in their heads at the same time.

Zuckerberg has every right to decide to keep Thiel on the FB board. But he
also has the right to ask Thiel to leave, and doing so would not be any less
principled than keeping him. Both decisions rest on the same principle, which
is that Zuckerberg is free to make his own decisions about who he associates
with.

~~~
ThomPete
You are taking a point made in about diversity in general and applying it to a
single case.

I hope you understand what's wrong about that.

~~~
snowwrestler
I'm making the point that one cannot talk about diversity in general. The word
means very different things in different contexts. Political beliefs are not
the same thing as race or gender.

~~~
ThomPete
Of course you can talk about diversity in general. It doesn't actually mean
different things in different context but it has different consequences IMO.

~~~
snowwrestler
With respect, I don't think you've thought about this very carefully.

If you feel you have, I'd be interested in your response to any of my detailed
points above.

edit: softened the tone

~~~
ThomPete
The difference we are having is not with the details but with the fundamental
principle you approach this from vs. how I approach it.

Diversity is by default at good thing by exception a bad thing. Thats my base
point and I thought about that quite a lot.

------
programminggeek
It'd remarkable to me how many people who support 'diversity' and 'inclusion'
will shun those who have ideas/beliefs they disagree with. Good job to Mark
for not being one of those people.

~~~
swang
it's remarkable to me how this "point" is brought up every time someone
mentions diversity. diversity is not about equality. diversity is about
balancing the current inequalities that people who are not rich, not the right
gender, not the right race, or not the right sexual orientation are forced to
deal with every single day. it is not about giving every side an equal
viewpoint because one side has had an unfair advantage for as far back as
anyone can remember.

and it's pretty hypocritical of thiel to be mad at gawker for outing him as
gay due to his fear of repercussions since he now supports a candidate who
would gladly keep the status quo in making homosexuality something you have to
worry about being "leaked" to the public.

this is why there is outrage over thiel giving/supporting a candidate like
trump. and further outrage against zuck and sam altman for advocating
"diversity" while allowing thiel to support someone who is completely against
that idea.

so no, it really shouldn't be that remarkable that people who support
"diversity" would not support people who are against those ideals.

~~~
javalava
What has Trump done to make you think he hates diversity? I get that Trump
comes off egotistical, but even if he only cares about his own image, I think
it's unfair to say that Trump is "completely against the idea of diversity".
Just because he's a big bad white man and wants to put America first that
means he hates all diversity?

I cant see any reason for Trump to be against gay people either, or any other
group for that matter, but liberals have no problem saying that he's anti-
everything. This is the same kind of overly PC whining that is fueling the
Trump fire.

~~~
mikestew
_What has Trump done to make you think he hates diversity?_

Have you heard the man speak, or heard him quoted? You don't denigrate
Mexicans, federal judges whose parents are Mexican, and blacks because you're
a fanboy of diversity. You don't judge women solely on their appearance and
yet still get to be the poster boy of diversity. Making fun of the disabled is
not only a cheap shot beneath even most 13 year old boys, it also doesn't get
you the "Diversity Champion 2016" award.

 _Why would Trump have anything against gay people?_

Because he hasn't shown any respect for anyone else that isn't white,
straight, male, and American-born. Why would homosexuals get a pass?

~~~
javalava
I've never heard Trump denigrate Mexicans or Blacks. He made that one poorly
phrased comment about illegal immigrants being drug dealers and rapists, but
in context, it's clear he wasn't implying anything negative about Mexican
people as a whole, but just those that illegally cross the border. All of the
instances you mentioned were taken out of context.

"Because he hasn't shown any respect for anyone else that isn't white,
straight, male, and American-born. Why would homosexuals get a pass?"

This exemplifies exactly what I was trying to say. Do you really believe that
Trump has never shown respect for anyone except for white men? I feel like
there's nothing Trump could do to avoid this stigma, because our PC culture
attaches it to anyone who speaks out against them. I think this is exactly why
Peter Thiel is pro-Trump.

~~~
drewrv
> I've never heard Trump denigrate Mexicans or Blacks.

Then you haven't been paying attention. He said a judge couldn't do his job
because his parents were Mexican. The highest ranking elected official from
his own party, Paul Ryan, called it the "textbook definition of a racist
comment".

~~~
ThomPete
Thats not a lot to go by though and hardly enough to brand him a racist.

He has hired more or less any race, have several women on his boards and trust
his daughter with big parts of the business.

His actions are very different than the claims of him.

I would agree that he comes of rather ego-driven but there is a world of
difference between that and the way he is portraid as the anti-christ.

~~~
swang
> He has hired more or less any race, have several women on his boards and
> trust his daughter with big parts of the business.

Not[0] Really[1]

0: [http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/08/donald-trump-
cas...](http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/08/donald-trump-casino-women-
executives) 1: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-courtship-
of-...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-courtship-of-black-
voters-hampered-by-decades-of-race-
controversies/2016/07/19/d9822250-4d2e-11e6-aa14-e0c1087f7583_story.html)

~~~
ThomPete
He doesn't really run casinos anymore so that's hardly useful.

But for instance

Key Executives For The Trump Organization LLC

Cathy Hoffman Glosser

[http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/people.asp?...](http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/people.asp?privcapId=344985)

In other words he does have women in leading positions.

~~~
swang
> He doesn't really run casinos anymore so that's hardly useful.

huh?

