There are lots of ways to "go against the grain" in the way you point out. You could be an unthinking dogmatist. Nothing would change the way you feel, not even the censure of your peers. (Is Thiel being censured? Sure, by Pinboard on twitter. By his peers? Not that I can see. His richy-rich pals all still love him, AFAICT.) Is there something admirable about having your head in the ground? Not really---and I don't think that, on the broader social level, we tend to applaud people who still think gay sex is shameful and should be illegal, even though, you know, they really go against the grain.
You could be, say, a modern Cato. But Cato is admirable not just because he fell on his sword but because he fell on his sword out of devotion to an admirable ideal.
I see no reason, incidentally, to believe your claim that "Thiel stands alone in his strength to go against the grain". If other people aren't going against the grain, it might be that they think the grain is largely going in the right direction already, and not that they lack the strength to go against it. And, on the other hand, you have to pay a little attention to threads about diversity of race or gender to find a lot of people with the strength to go against the grain. Guess what: the grain they go against, Thiel goes with.
In Thiel's case, it unfortunately seems like he's turned into one of those rich people who is so far away from how most people live that he does not understand the consequences of some of his ideas. A common problem with the elite: although self-made elites usually have their past to reflect on and make better informed decisions (unlike e.g. the Koch brothers)
Now, I don't want to hijack this thread into what is wrong with extreme libertarian thinking (or extreme adherence to any philosophy). You're question was why I thought he doesn't understand the consequences of his ideas: this is why I think that.
the issue is the same, we don't know how to properly vet these people, nor do we know if they want to assimilate (big problem if they don't)... personally I think given the world we live in, that is logical. I also don't think it should be permanent and we should encourage those that want to join America and all it has to offer so long as we can do our best to ensure their sincerity...
> ... And many of those who like him personally and call him a "dear friend" are even perplexed, going as far as not talking to him of late because of his Trump support. "I’ve tried," sighed one such friend, who described a number of colleagues trying to pull him off the Trump train, including PayPal Mafia family member Reid Hoffman.
http://www.recode.net/2016/7/21/12241648/peter-thiel-trump-s...
There is if you think the grain is a corrupt and unfair system that needs dismantling. The enemy of my enemy is my friend thing.
I would consider myself to have overlapping social thoughts with most liberals but it's really terrifying to me to have an absolute aggregation of media and executive power (in our industry) along one line of thinking (even if I agree with most of it!). Power needs to be distributed, not consolidated.
No, there still isn't, because you seem to have missed the "in itself" part. Even in the case you identify, what is admirable is going against a corrupt grain (and presumably, we'd want to actually make it "going against a corrupt grain in a way likely to improve matters"; corruption is multiple and going against corruption in one respect isn't necessarily to go in a less-corrupt-overall direction), not "going against the grain" in itself.
This dogma holds consolidation of power to be bad /in and of itself/, rather than because of a consequence, such as "consolidated power leads to suffering." If that's your opinion, fine, but it's no different than any other religion.
A small slice of a giant pie is bigger than a large slice of a tiny pie?
I still don't see the outcome you predict.
TLDR; power consolidation is a risk factor that leads to actual bad policy, not something with actual, palpable negative value in and of itself. E.g. the power of the federal government to end slavery is a win in my book.
* * * *
Let's map "objectionability" onto a number line.
A neutral policy is zero. An objectionable one is on the negative side, a non-objectionable one is on the positive side. The magnitude of the objectionability or virtue yields the magnitude of the number.
I'll go with your presumption that both Clinton and Trump's policies are only found on the negative side of that line. And we'll deal with their policies in aggregate. We'll also assume that current policy is perfectly neutral, at zero:
<---------T-------------C-----0
T = Trump APV (avg policy value)
C = Clinton APV
0 = CPV (current policy value)
Let's map effectiveness to a float between 0 and 1. Simple. If Trump's policies are twice as bad as Clinton's, he has to be half as effective as she for them to equal out. Here's a little table:
APV, Effect, Total value, Who, Worse
-20, .05, -1, Trump, O
-2, .95, -1.9, Clinton, X
-20, .1, -2, Trump, X
-2, .9, -1.8, Clinton, O
-10, .05, -0.5, Trump, O
-2, .95, -1.9, Clinton, X
-10, .2, -2, Trump, X
-2, .8, -1.6, Clinton, O
The problem with that simplification is the assumption that CPV is at neutral, zero. And mapping effectiveness to a scalar factor of APV is also incorrect -- instead, it has to be understood as a normalization factor, attempting to return CPV to APV. The greater the effectiveness, the more quickly CPV achieves APV.
Should any factor bring CPV further negative than Clinton's APV, her effectiveness would become a force that lifts CPV. Meanwhile, Trump's is always attempting to pull CPV further negative towards his abysmal APV.
"The system sucks, so let's put ISIS in charge" is an example of "going against the grain" and a truly shitty idea. Some of Thiel's ideas are in this "against the grain and shitty" category.
I'm guessing Thiel is thinking Trump is the best candidate to support the kind of changes he's looking for. Of course, you're free to disagree with that sentiment.
I can't speak for him, but a lot of people see the break up of a homogenous status quo as a goal in and of itself. I don't support Trump because I don't like his policies but that's a hard position for me to take because I _do_ appreciate the utter slap in the face he's giving to traditional politicians who I view as perpetuating an extremely corrupt and damaging system.
Thiel can take perfectly rational, fact-driven decisions based on Trump's behavior, regardless of what it is. Indeed, it's completely possible that to achieve his goals, he must leverage Trump's misuse of "facts" and, erm, "creativity" with respect to truth.
You have to remember that Theil doesn't want the same thing you want. Just because you want something doesn't mean Theil want the same thing, or has the same goal.
Theil knows exactly what he wants, that is why he supports Trump. It seems to be you who does not understand what Theil wants. Because if he wants the same thing you wants, he would have supported what you supported.
Not it is not. Pro illegal immigration advocates try to mislead by saying immigration from Mexican citizens is down to mean illegal immigration isn't happening.
It is now other groups but still coming VIA Mexico.
You act as if Trump is only helping the rich. Trump is helping everyone. Although he cut taxes for the rich, he also cut taxes for the poor.
Under Trump's tax plan, poor people don't even pay tax.
If you're single and you make less than $25,000 per year, you don't pay tax.
If you have a wife and you make less than $50,000 per year, you don't pay tax.
If you have a wife and a kid and you make less than $75,000 per year, you don't pay tax.
It will be compensated by making the country rich and wealthy again. A rich and wealthy country will be able to pay off the deficits and national debt.
How will Trump make the country rich and wealthy again?
By making it more profitable for companies to do businesses in the United States, so companies will start doing businesses in the United States again. Which means jobs. Which means more people have money. And with more people with more money to tax, the government will get more money even though the tax is lower. Because there are more people to tax. Also, with more companies doing business in the United States, although the tax is lower, the government get more money.
When people have more money to spent, they buy more stuff, which means businesses make more money, which means more profits, more jobs, and higher pay. Which means more money for workers. It is an upward cycle. The economy goes up.
And also, make the country rich again, by doing better trade deals where America doesn't actually lose money. Where the United States actually make money, in those deals.
Also, by taxing or stopping remittance money sent to Mexico by illegals in the United States. Every year, illegals (who don't pay federal taxes) send back $28 billion dollar to Mexico. In other word, money is flowing out of the United States into Mexico. Trump wants to tax it to pay for the wall (hence, the saying Mexico will pay for the wall). This again, will create jobs.
Trump will do this and many other things to make America wealthy and rich again. All this information are on his website. It's all part of his plan to Make America Great Again.
I haven't heard anything from him that indicates deep thinking about an issue.
(edit: talking about whether Trump would defend Turkey if Russia invaded unprovoked): Trump said he would have to think about whether those countries “have fulfilled their obligations to us.” Trump clarified, “If they fulfill their obligations to us, the answer is yes.”
It seems pretty rational to me; he's saying that if a country like Turkey wants to acquire the benefits of a military alliance they need to pay their fair share. On the surface that seems reasonable to me and honestly, from reading here if Erdrogan got attacked by Russia I doubt most of Trump's enemies would shed any tears about his stance on NATO anyway.
[0] http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/21/trump-doesnt-care-about-er...
Trump was also a "birther". That alone shows to me that he doesn't take politics seriously.
Question, have you heard or read Trump's foreign policy speech?
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-...
He lays out many criticism of our current foreign policy, including that we don't negotiate our deals properly, and this results in us not being reliable among our friends, and respected among our enemies. I recommend reading it.
http://www.businessinsider.com/only-us-and-estonia-meeting-n...
Quoting Christopher Hitchens (who is quoting John Stuart Mill):
> "Indeed as John Stuart Mill said, if all in society were agreed on the truth and beauty and value of one proposition, all except one person, it would be most important–in fact, it would become even more important–that that one heretic be heard, because we would still benefit from his perhaps outrageous or appalling view"
@maxxxxx I'm not an american, and don't follow closely american politics, but isn't supporting Trump "going against the system"?
Sure, I agree. But there are some kinds of diversity that no industry needs. You wouldn't, for example, ever say, "Hey, Silicon Valley is full of non-racists. Let's get some more racists in here!" You'd instead be glad that Silicon Valley had a non-racist groupthink. The same is true of things like climate change, where "diversity" just means someone is dangerously wrong and living in the past.
I don't intimately know Thiel's political views (above were just examples), but it seems that many people are worried that Thiel falls into that category of "diversity we don't need".
This industry needs more diversity of thought and Thiel stands alone in his strength to go against the grain and stand by his philosophy. Love his ideas or hate them, that's an admirable trait.