My opinion: The people that bailed on Peter Thiel would have been potential flighty partners for other reasons later on.
If someone can't abide by a business partner having a different political view then that could indicate a rather rigid mindset - and given the fluid nature of business, that could become a liability at some point in future.
That said, Peter Thiel has said and done offensive things in the past on many occasions. Support of a Trump candidacy should not be surprising for someone who has said that women's right to vote is a threat to democracy, or who would bankrupt a company to retaliate for an employee outing him. I'm happy to see Thiel start to have repercussions for his actions, but the same tech community that forced Brendan Eich out of a job for a $1000 political donation has taken years to start forcibly taking a stand against Peter Thiel. Clearly, Thiel has tons of money and business acumen, which a lot of people want more than to "do the right thing". I imagine all of this -- if it is significant at all -- dies down after the election anyway.
There's also a big difference between supporting a candidate the way a normal person does—donate a little money, stuff some envelopes at their local campaign office, that kind of thing—and lending them your substantial business reputation very publicly, and donating large amounts of money to their campaign. Said reputation and the fortune backing those donations become fair game in the field of politics when you do something like that. Acting the part of the big-money political oligarch-influencer draws heat and has consequences, and it ought to.
The notion that you can throw in with a campaign in this manner and expect people to act like this is somehow disconnected from every other part of your life, and especially your business life, is absurd. They're obviously tightly linked. It reminds me of the outrage a kid expresses when they think they've found a way to be a jerk and not get in trouble for it, then get called out on it by an adult.
"The notion that you can throw in with a campaign in this manner and expect people to act like this is somehow disconnected from every other part of your life, and especially your business life, is absurd."
Agreed. Throw in with a campaign or do anything else for that matter. Has there been anything from Peter Thiel on the response to his donation? I think it's highly likely he anticipated some kind of response to his donation. He may well have weighed this very response when making his decision to donate.
> Has there been anything from Peter Thiel on the response to his donation?
Right, to be clear I wasn't likening Thiel in particular to the kid in my analogy, since, like you, I'm not aware of how or even whether he's weighed in on this.
That was clear to me. Likewise I hope you didn't take my comment as assuming you were! Your analogy got me thinking about the situation from Thiel's perspective. This whole election has had me thinking about a lot of things.
Frankly, part of why I responded to you was because it looks like you're trying to look at the behavior in general rather than the politics in particular, and I appreciate that. I'm trying to do the same.
> that kind of thing—and lending them your substantial business reputation very publicly, and donating large amounts of money to their campaign.
To me this just seems part of democracy. Popular ideas will get a lot of financial support, and unpopular ideas will not get a lot of support. Have you considered the reach, the power and the wealth of the media establishment that is railing against Trump? I highly doubt that a million dollar is more than a drop in this contest. If Trump should not be allowed to get substantial financial support, why don't we simply forbid Trump to run at all?
I think that's a separate topic, though, isn't it?
I'm going to do my best to paraphrase both you and GP. If either of you feel I'm doing so unfairly or want to expand or clarify, please do.
I understand you to be discussing whether or not someone should be allowed to support a candidate or campaign.
The one I understand ashark to be making is about the ramifications of supporting a candidate or campaign.
They are related in the sense that the ramifications be so severe that it prevents someone from contributing, and that's worthy of (a separate) discussion
In this case, I don't think Peter Thiel is being prevented from contributing. I'm pretty sure he considered the ramifications before he made his contribution. What do you think?
There is a saying that if someone says all of their exes are crazy then it is not them but their exes. Likewise if all of the media has conspired against trump them perhaps trump is to blame.
I don't know if Trump's a con man. I don't know if he's a sexual predator (doesn't look good though). But he is a racist. Even if you agree with some of what Trump says (audit the fed!), the racism is such an big part of his platform, that supporting him is actively and knowingly supporting [extreme] racism.
Whenever something bad happens, people here get on their high horse. "The VW engineers should have quit", "How do NSA employees sleep at night?". The VW engineers are looking relatively ethical all of a sudden.
Calling them "flighty" and "rigid" (and aren't those antonyms anyway?) is a lazy ad hominem attack, ignoring even the possibility that there's logic in their actions.
To wit: If you think that the political platform of a potential business partner would do long-term harm to your own business, then you might want to re-consider the relationship.
If a Presidential candidate advocated policies that would for instance harm the United States' relationship with China, and business in China are major partners of yours, you may feel the need to shy away from business partners who are actively working to elect that candidate. This is just normal business self-preservation, not a character flaw.
I understand the separation between business/investment realtionships and political affiliation. Most politicians actions are relatively benign. Hence, overlooking the political affiliation of investors with said politicians is easy. However, there's a point when a politician is advocating for something so egregious that supporting said politician can no longer be ignored.
Currently, Trump is "just" advocating for racism, sexism, etc. Apparently that's sufficiently benign to ignore the investors affiliations when their investment is large enough (at least for YC).
But what if Trump was advocating for something more egregious? Like, say, allowing domestic police to torture suspects. There's always a line. For some, Trump's actions have crossed that line. For others, it hasn't happened yet.
If Trump hasn't said something one considers egregious I posit they probably haven't been paying attention
Advocating waterboarding and 'think that are unthinkable';
> We’re going to have to be a lot sharper and we’re going to have to do things that are unthinkable almost. Unthinkable, when you look at what’s happening to us, when you look at what’s going on in this country and around the world, and we don’t want, you know they’re allowed to cut off heads and they’re allowed to chop off heads and we can’t water board.
Killing the families of terrorists;
> The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families
Executing Snowden;
> “We have to get him back and we have to get him back fast. It could take months or it could take years, and that would be pathetic.” [..] “This guy’s a bad guy and, you know, there’s still a thing called execution,” he said.
Suing the press;
> “Well, in England they have a system where you can actually sue if someone says something wrong. Our press is allowed to say whatever they want and get away with it,”
Along with the religion bans, mosque surveillance, Mexico is sending their rapists, Hispanic judges can't be impartial, suspending 2nd amendment rights for people not convicted of crimes (though Hillary agrees here), and on and on and on..
> For some, Trump's actions have crossed that line. For others, it hasn't happened yet.
I think that's a good description. And this is making a lot of people think about where that line is.
There's another dimension here as well. Putting aside the particular actions and stances of these candidates, the US has effectively a binary choice for the presidential election. We all have a large number of beliefs, and we rank those beliefs as well.
Given a binary choice, it's highly unlikely that your personal beliefs are going to perfectly align with either candidate. Which beliefs are you going to compromise on in choosing your candidate?
Given the record-high strong unfavorable ratings of both candidates[0], it's pretty clear most of the voters are going to be compromising on some values they likely hold to be pretty important. That's a tough place to be, both personally, and when you see others making choices that you don't agree with.
It's heartening to see people vocally take (civil) action on their beliefs -- on both sides. As long as we can remember that in addition to the things we disagree on -- a particular issue, who we end up voting for -- there are things we agree on as well.*
* Please don't take this as advocating false-equivalency. We need to at least start from a position of being charitable towards each other if we're going to work together.
In the hopes of better communication, if you'd like to down vote this comment, will you also take the time to add a brief reply? I appreciate it.
> [T]here's a point when a politician is advocating for something so egregious that supporting said politician can no longer be ignored.
There are no words by which I can be sufficiently emphatic in my disagreement.
Politics [whether at the national level, or "mere" office politics] is the process of making group decisions. Democratic politics are built upon a shared group consensus. The only way this process can be valid -- that is, to have an outcome which accurately reflects the communal beliefs of the group -- is if the members can express themselves unhindered by fear of repercussion.
The only response in a democratic system to ideas with which you disagree is to argue against and persuade their audience to no longer support them. To do otherwise is to repudiate the very premises and processes upon which modern representative government is built.
tired of sensationalist headlines. The are only talking about one company, Seed fund Backstage Capital , but the headline makes it seems like it's a much more widespread occurrence. Most companies would do anything to get backing by Thiel
27 comments
[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 59.9 ms ] threadIf someone can't abide by a business partner having a different political view then that could indicate a rather rigid mindset - and given the fluid nature of business, that could become a liability at some point in future.
If it was Romney or Cruz or Rubio or almost anyone else I don't think you'd see any of this happen.
That said, Peter Thiel has said and done offensive things in the past on many occasions. Support of a Trump candidacy should not be surprising for someone who has said that women's right to vote is a threat to democracy, or who would bankrupt a company to retaliate for an employee outing him. I'm happy to see Thiel start to have repercussions for his actions, but the same tech community that forced Brendan Eich out of a job for a $1000 political donation has taken years to start forcibly taking a stand against Peter Thiel. Clearly, Thiel has tons of money and business acumen, which a lot of people want more than to "do the right thing". I imagine all of this -- if it is significant at all -- dies down after the election anyway.
The notion that you can throw in with a campaign in this manner and expect people to act like this is somehow disconnected from every other part of your life, and especially your business life, is absurd. They're obviously tightly linked. It reminds me of the outrage a kid expresses when they think they've found a way to be a jerk and not get in trouble for it, then get called out on it by an adult.
Agreed. Throw in with a campaign or do anything else for that matter. Has there been anything from Peter Thiel on the response to his donation? I think it's highly likely he anticipated some kind of response to his donation. He may well have weighed this very response when making his decision to donate.
Right, to be clear I wasn't likening Thiel in particular to the kid in my analogy, since, like you, I'm not aware of how or even whether he's weighed in on this.
Frankly, part of why I responded to you was because it looks like you're trying to look at the behavior in general rather than the politics in particular, and I appreciate that. I'm trying to do the same.
Thanks for being part of that!
To me this just seems part of democracy. Popular ideas will get a lot of financial support, and unpopular ideas will not get a lot of support. Have you considered the reach, the power and the wealth of the media establishment that is railing against Trump? I highly doubt that a million dollar is more than a drop in this contest. If Trump should not be allowed to get substantial financial support, why don't we simply forbid Trump to run at all?
I'm going to do my best to paraphrase both you and GP. If either of you feel I'm doing so unfairly or want to expand or clarify, please do.
I understand you to be discussing whether or not someone should be allowed to support a candidate or campaign.
The one I understand ashark to be making is about the ramifications of supporting a candidate or campaign.
They are related in the sense that the ramifications be so severe that it prevents someone from contributing, and that's worthy of (a separate) discussion
In this case, I don't think Peter Thiel is being prevented from contributing. I'm pretty sure he considered the ramifications before he made his contribution. What do you think?
Trump is a con man, sexual predator and racist and by donating millions to him, Thiel's judgement and ethics should be questioned.
I don't know if Trump's a con man. I don't know if he's a sexual predator (doesn't look good though). But he is a racist. Even if you agree with some of what Trump says (audit the fed!), the racism is such an big part of his platform, that supporting him is actively and knowingly supporting [extreme] racism.
Whenever something bad happens, people here get on their high horse. "The VW engineers should have quit", "How do NSA employees sleep at night?". The VW engineers are looking relatively ethical all of a sudden.
To wit: If you think that the political platform of a potential business partner would do long-term harm to your own business, then you might want to re-consider the relationship.
If a Presidential candidate advocated policies that would for instance harm the United States' relationship with China, and business in China are major partners of yours, you may feel the need to shy away from business partners who are actively working to elect that candidate. This is just normal business self-preservation, not a character flaw.
Currently, Trump is "just" advocating for racism, sexism, etc. Apparently that's sufficiently benign to ignore the investors affiliations when their investment is large enough (at least for YC).
But what if Trump was advocating for something more egregious? Like, say, allowing domestic police to torture suspects. There's always a line. For some, Trump's actions have crossed that line. For others, it hasn't happened yet.
Advocating waterboarding and 'think that are unthinkable';
> We’re going to have to be a lot sharper and we’re going to have to do things that are unthinkable almost. Unthinkable, when you look at what’s happening to us, when you look at what’s going on in this country and around the world, and we don’t want, you know they’re allowed to cut off heads and they’re allowed to chop off heads and we can’t water board.
Killing the families of terrorists;
> The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families
Executing Snowden;
> “We have to get him back and we have to get him back fast. It could take months or it could take years, and that would be pathetic.” [..] “This guy’s a bad guy and, you know, there’s still a thing called execution,” he said.
Suing the press;
> “Well, in England they have a system where you can actually sue if someone says something wrong. Our press is allowed to say whatever they want and get away with it,”
Along with the religion bans, mosque surveillance, Mexico is sending their rapists, Hispanic judges can't be impartial, suspending 2nd amendment rights for people not convicted of crimes (though Hillary agrees here), and on and on and on..
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/08/do...
I think that's a good description. And this is making a lot of people think about where that line is.
There's another dimension here as well. Putting aside the particular actions and stances of these candidates, the US has effectively a binary choice for the presidential election. We all have a large number of beliefs, and we rank those beliefs as well.
Given a binary choice, it's highly unlikely that your personal beliefs are going to perfectly align with either candidate. Which beliefs are you going to compromise on in choosing your candidate?
Given the record-high strong unfavorable ratings of both candidates[0], it's pretty clear most of the voters are going to be compromising on some values they likely hold to be pretty important. That's a tough place to be, both personally, and when you see others making choices that you don't agree with.
It's heartening to see people vocally take (civil) action on their beliefs -- on both sides. As long as we can remember that in addition to the things we disagree on -- a particular issue, who we end up voting for -- there are things we agree on as well.*
[0]: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-distaste-for-b...
* Please don't take this as advocating false-equivalency. We need to at least start from a position of being charitable towards each other if we're going to work together.
In the hopes of better communication, if you'd like to down vote this comment, will you also take the time to add a brief reply? I appreciate it.
There are no words by which I can be sufficiently emphatic in my disagreement.
Politics [whether at the national level, or "mere" office politics] is the process of making group decisions. Democratic politics are built upon a shared group consensus. The only way this process can be valid -- that is, to have an outcome which accurately reflects the communal beliefs of the group -- is if the members can express themselves unhindered by fear of repercussion.
The only response in a democratic system to ideas with which you disagree is to argue against and persuade their audience to no longer support them. To do otherwise is to repudiate the very premises and processes upon which modern representative government is built.