Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions (opens in new tab)

Wow, this is the third time I've seen this link climbing up HN front page in the past hour [1][2]. I'm interested in this topic, why does it keep getting flagged?

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12727973 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12726970

For something that is so related to ycombinator, and hackernews, I find it odd that so many people find this article worthy of purging.

From The Education of a Libertarian [0]

---

"I believe that politics is way too intense. That’s why I’m a libertarian. Politics gets people angry, destroys relationships, and polarizes peoples’ vision: the world is us versus them; good people versus the other. Politics is about interfering with other people’s lives without their consent. That’s probably why, in the past, libertarians have made little progress in the political sphere. Thus, I advocate focusing energy elsewhere, onto peaceful projects that some consider utopian." - Peter Thiel [0]

[0]: https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...

---

Leaving aside all the drama surrounding YC and Peter Thiel, this is where it all breaks down for me. How am I supposed to take Thiel at his word today, when less than a decade ago he was convinced that politics is "too intense" because it angers people, divides them into us-vs-them groups, and tears them apart.

Is it simply that he's changed who he is in that time? I mean, that's a legitimate reason, and one I could respect even if it means I don't agree with who he is today. I'd want to know what changed his mind.

Or are there different Peter Thiel personas? I can understand this, too. As Hillary Clinton pointed out, Abraham Lincoln believed that politicians have a private and a public persona, because most of the electorate would shudder to see how our tasty, democratic sausage was being made.

Or is he a capricious man who doesn't stick to his principals when motivated by financial or political need? That would be disappointing, but the cynic in me says it wouldn't be surprising.

Without knowing who he truly is, and why there is such a divide between just 7 years ago (still fully within his adult life) and now, his whole persona just doesn't compute with me and I'm left with the inescapable conclusion that he's too chaotic to trust.

Does anyone have any insight?

good to see Project Include standing up. now is a good time to stand up as an organization CEO, director, investor and declare where you stand. It could save your company lots of money down the road white-washing your history if Trump implements only part of the things he says he will. Ask the likes of Volkswagen & Daimler how they like their roots.

And don't tell me companies don't need to have an opinion. That was true 100 years ago not in the age of TTIP. But it could be that considering Thiel's investment portfolio that he does want actually more war. Who is the biggest spender right now in Cyber? (hint it's not just crappy IoT devices). Defense applications are way more expensive and proftable to build than consumer apps. Especially in times of fear.

Companies are people, so please YES do take a side and don't be a coward CEO hiding behind "it's politics therefore we should not speak of it at work".

I wish YC would have followed the example and I'm still waiting from S.Altman to say something on twitter that doesn't sound like an appalling excuse!

I'm starting to feel a lot like Hacker News's aversion to political topics is not only over-bearing but naive. The fact is, we don't live in a vacuum and the political climate does affect us, even though we'd all like to pretend it doesn't. This article has trended three times and been flagged three times. What's the explanation for this?

> Today, we struggle to rationalize Peter Thiel’s power and influence as he moves further and further out there. We were confused by his seasteading funding, angered by his negative views on women’s voting rights, amused by his reported fixation with living to 120, and annoyed by his keynoting the Republican National Convention.

He explains both his seasteading interest and his position on the apparent statistical inevitabilities of voting patterns in the very essay Pao linked (the link is on the words "negative views").

He explicitly states (whether he's lying or not is another matter, but let's remember the principle of charity) that he's not in favor of disenfranchising anyone within current political systems.

We can argue all day the egalitarian position, but if Thiel is right that the future is dim under current politics, and bright under libertarian politics, then there's a problem: do you sacrifice the future (potentially the future of humanity) for equality now, or do you sacrifice equality, or set up alternative political spaces with the characteristic that people who participate in those political spaces are disproportionately libertarian? Which may or may not, but probably would, mean relatively fewer women and minorities self-select to participate in those political spaces.

The purge begins.

And the left calls Trump supporters fascists...

Oh what a scholar!