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.
> “We would not do that,” Mr. Thiel says flatly.
Mr. Thiel, I don't believe you.
> 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?
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?
Thiel seems to believe (like I do) that sometimes you need to sacrifice some of your own progress in the short term, for a greater good in the long term. Not that I really like Trump very much, I get why people voted for him though.
..... 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.
I'd love an answer to this, but have zero expectation of anyone answering in good faith.
What do you think he did that really caused anyone some real harm?
Plus some handwaving that everything bad or dangerous about Trump isn't a big deal.
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.
Not sure why you valorize his investment thesis (wouldn't curing third-world diseases be more heroic than solving aging in the first world?). But the Gawker affair does not make me respect him.
If it was so heroic, why wasn't it public from the beginning? I have no love for Gawker, but I do get hives when people use wealth to curtail speech. Especially when those same people stump for a candidate who has spoken out against the press, and suggested that we strengthen our nonexistent federal libel laws to restrict speech further.
So no, there's not much to like about Thiel, not for me, anyway. But we're all entitled to our opinions.
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?
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.
The opposite of "interested" in "conflict of interest" is "disinterested", not "uninterested".
