He is attempting to undermine democracy in the country and I'm not sure you need a single additional reason to object to anyone who supports him.
Thiel, of course, does not think "freedom and democracy are compatible": https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...
> We now have a political situation where billionaires are literally able to buy elections and candidates. Let’s not kid ourselves. That is the reality right now. [1]
(He also is fond of claiming "the system" is rigged, if not elections directly.)
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sanders-takes-on-bil...
Trump is suggesting that actual votes are being miscounted deliberately. That the entire voting system of the US cannot be trusted to provide the result the public give it. That's a very different charge, a very dangerous one, and utterly unproven.
His railing against the system regards economics and yes the foray of money into politics. It is in a similar category of statements but is very different than claiming the voting machines are rigged. Yes, some Bernie supporters alleged there was outright voting manipulation, but the Sanders campaign did not directly allege that.
But between the Dems and the Reps? Those two are fairly balanced. There is some rigging in some states through gerrymandering and making it harder for some groups to vote, but it's on a very different scale than the rigging towards the two-party establishment.
> Wherever a politician casts doubt on the legitimacy of a parliament because it no longer represents the Voice of the People, we can smell Ur-Fascism.
* Nationalism
* A notion of racial or ethnic purity (see for example, the 2nd-generation American judge who wasn't *really* American because of his Mexican heritage)
* Attraction to 'strong' leadership
* The concept of a natural aristocracy (eg. based on race or national identity)
* A theory of historical decline, often combined with a promise of some great destiny (make America great *again*)
* High praise for cultural traditions of the in-group (divided on racial, ethnic or national lines). This can make it easy to confuse facism with conservatism, but for non-facist conservatives, ethnic divisiveness isn't a desirable goal.
* Localist perspective on all issues (no tendency towards globalism or universalism). Only the interest of the in-group are considered.
* Strong masculine/feminine divide. Particular emphasis on masculine qualities for the state and its leaders.
You say people are quick to throw around the term, yet you're equally quick to disregard those who see some very obvious similarities between Trump's style of campaigning and the rise of various fascist leaders.
These clues are not subtle in Trump's case. It's mind boggling to think that people do not see them. It's like watching Blue's Clues with the audience of children yelling "THE CLUE IS RIGHT THERE!" and Steve is completely oblivious for the whole episode. In the end Blue dies because Steve is ignorant. Blue is our Democracy. You are Steve.
For Ur-Fascism, disagreement is treason.
Those on both sides of this debate who seek to silence and ostracise their opponents should rethink that position.
Would you also apply this to Al Gore's complains back in 2000? Why or why not?
You might also be interested in some analyses I found of how these points apply to Trump. Unfortunately some of these links are a few months old so they don't mention some more recent events (the second debate gave us plenty of more material for #3 and #14 and probably others, and the whole thing with the tape and the sexual assault allegations adds fuel to #12):
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12175456
http://lithub.com/umberto-eco-on-donald-trump-14-ways-of-loo...
https://warisboring.com/yes-trump-is-a-fascist-heres-the-che...
http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/10/fascism/502841/
(and if I find more within the edit window, I'll add them)
A) That's been done before (Gore, 2000).
B) There's evidence of voter fraud: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDc8PVCvfKs
I hope no one intimidates voters, though. That's not right no matter who does it or why.
Please, spare us the pearl-clutching. You're only fooling people who don't know their history.
http://www.snopes.com/wikileaks-exposes-clinton-assassinatio...
As we all should, since many/most electronic voting machines don't even have a paper trail. How is it that so many standard liberal positions from five or ten years ago have somehow now become ultra conservative?
Trump may be saying it for the wrong reasons, but he's absolutely right that the integrity of the election is in doubt.
It's fine to question things, but just saying "it's in doubt" with no argument is just Trump style FUD.
However, I do not agree that it's fair to call an investor's competency into question due to their political views. I agree organizations have every right to not affiliate themselves with those investors, but in the real world there are plenty of examples of investors who hold controversial political views.
Logically, there is no a priori reason why "Thiel is a good investor." and "Thiel strongly endorses Trump." cannot both be true. To go further, I don't see an a priori reason why an investor with political views that are antagonistic to the industry he focuses on cannot be a very good investor. It might not be likely, but on its own I do not agree with using politics as a criterion for investing performance. That's silly - just look at investing performance directly.
To go even further, I think it would be disingenuous for groups like YC to announce they will distance themselves from investors they disagree with because "How could they be qualified investors if they hold this opinion?" That's masking the real reason for not affiliating with them, and in my opinion they shouldn't have to mask that anyway.
I also think using that sort of language establishes a precedent that makes the industry less inclusive to people with opposing political views. Much of the tech industry is progressive and liberal, but it would be ridiculous if this was applied to potential founders. Should founders who support SOPA or Trump not be admitted to YC if they are well into a startup that will most likely become the next Google?
Put another way, if you read Zero to One and you found it to be very insightful and full of legitimately good ideas, would you call it into question after learning that Thiel supports Trump? Doesn't that strike you as an ad hominem? Sure, Thiel's political views might be relevant or worth noting as an investor, but they certainly do not define his investment performance.
I'm not commenting on whether Paul Graham is accurate or inaccurate, modest or arrogant, but I'm not surprised that someone of his position holds strong views on his pet predictors.
Even extreme ones? Can you brush everything Trump has done under political cover? I really think that's going too far.
This is probably just me making assumptions.
I'm not trying to say white males are victims but the more we draw racial lines the more we segregate our society.
Seems unlikely.
Check your priors.
Which is what this conversation's about.
> This in turn chills applications from startups working on problems not relating to white western males.
With the crush of applicants now I doubt more than a very few applicants are not going to apply because Thiel is on the board.
And as is often pointed out by women, sexually predatory behavior is much more common than most men realize. (not sure if you are a man or woman, but putting it out there for other people, mostly because I also tend to forget this point).
He still has significant influence with YC, and has so far refused to personally distance himself from Thiel despite raging against Trump on twitter (a fact over which he's been taken to task by the likes of @pinboard and tptacek).
Silicon Valley already has tremendous diversity issues and a reputation as out-of-touch. If the future of America and the world only gets more diverse, which seems to be the case, then YC has a vested interest in being on the right side of history.
The decision YC is making about Thiel is also both a political decision and a business decision.
These aren't apples to apples comparisons; this issue isn't that simple.
From the article, these are companies like Comcast and Godaddy. It wasn't about actual YC companies.
What do you think all those "Religious Freedom" bills are? Fire the (out) gays.
This avoids the need for language like this: "fueled by hate and encouraging violence, they make each of us feel unsafe." I feel that this sort of language makes us fear one another and drives a wedge that need not be there.
[1] https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...
[2] eg sues critical news papers, threatens opponents with prison, encourages voter intimidation, encourages foreign powers to engage in cyber-warfare, blames "magazines" for terrorism
This is more believable to me since he has been giving talks on it for the last three or four years [0].
Liberal newspapers might want to convince you that this is all about hating democracy, women, and the free press but that doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. There seems to be a very small amount of dirt that has been dug up and turned from a mole hill into a mountain.
It's hard to image Thiel could possibly believe the latter but surely it's impossible that he believes the former.
>...Liberal newspapers...
Like the WSJ?
My central point is that he's been speaking about both economic and technological stagnation for many years and it is foolish to consider his actions now as completely distinct from this.
I've no idea whether he believes Trump will win or not. I expect that he didn't require it. His donation allowed him to speak at the RNC, and this has no doubt increased his political reach massively.
I was joking when I said liberal newspapers. They are not liberal at all.
>..There seems to be a very small amount of dirt that has been dug up..
I am unfamiliar with that definition of "small".
>...His donation allowed him to speak at the RNC...
Is the arrow of time also a liberal media conspiracy?
For me, I think the Thiel situation is worse, since his judgement is very important to the companies he works with, and that judgement is suspect given his recent behavior.
If you're smart and gritty and lucky enough to make a fortune with a start-up, then you probably have the minimum brain cells necessary to decide whether an investment opportunity is half-decent. Win some, lose some, nobody sees the difference because most of your wealth is either still in the company you worked on or is professionally managed, so there's little chance you will ever actually have to work again, and the public will still view you as a "winner."
To me, conflating entrepreneurs and investors - especially investors in politics - is about as silly as asking Hollywood celebrities about U.S. foreign policy.
Granted, this is still just "talk," but to people like me, it's indicative of how he tends to double-down instead of moderating himself. I don't have a lot of confidence he would begin moderating himself once presented with actual power.
Trump does not threaten technological innovation the way that SOPA did.
>I think it's fair to ask whether, if Peter Thiel is so clueless as to donate
In what way is Peter Thiel demonstrating cluelessness comparable to being in support of SOPA? You are conflating a demonstrated incompetence regarding the impact of SOPA on innovation, with more generalized differences of political opinion.
Only five years ago, Paul Graham was willing to uninvite investors from Demo Day based on their support for the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). https://techcrunch.com/2011/12/22/paul-graham-sopa-supportin...
Paul asked, "If these companies are so clueless about technology that they think SOPA is a good idea, how could they be good investors?"
The obvious answer to that question would be, "their track record as investors could demonstrate that." But no, in 2011, if you supported SOPA, you're out, regardless of your track record.
I think it's fair to ask whether, if Peter Thiel is so clueless as to donate $1.25 million to Donald Trump today, after so much of his dirty laundry has come to light and after this has been reflected in the polls, how could he be a good investor?
If it was the right decision for SOPA, it's right decision today.