Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

Re:Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions by mootothemax on Monday October 17, 2016 @02:06PM (#12727546)

Hang on - Thiel thinks women shouldn't have the right to vote, and has written unambiguously as much?

How on earth is that not the argument for dropping him?

From another angle, how on earth can you trust someone's advice if they truly and honestly think like that?

I'm honestly shocked YC can champion women founders while having someone like this involved as a partner.

Just shocking.

And so, so disappointing.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions by bitewhite on Monday October 17, 2016 @02:23PM (#12727723)

I don't see evidence of Thiel making any such remarks about women's rights to vote and the link cited actually makes the opposite claim. To me, it destroys an author's credibility to make such a blatantly false citation.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions by burkaman on Monday October 17, 2016 @02:23PM (#12727728)

Thiel would tell you that's not what he meant, it was simply a factual observation that women tend to vote against his preferences, according to polling data. And I do think he is slightly redeemed by the fact that his conclusion was not "let's roll back women's suffrage", it was "let's get rid of voting altogether".

So I don't think it's quite unambiguous, although I wouldn't buy this explanation. I would love to ask him why he thinks women voters differ from men on these issues.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions by exolymph on Monday October 17, 2016 @02:19PM (#12727691)

I dislike Thiel very much and think his politics are utterly wrong, but this:

> Thiel thinks women shouldn't have the right to vote, and has written unambiguously as much?

Is a vast oversimplification of what he wrote.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions by yuvadam on Monday October 17, 2016 @02:16PM (#12727650)

> 'the extension of the franchise to women has rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron'

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

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions by hiringmanager on Monday October 17, 2016 @03:07PM (#12728235)

He's saying that women tend not to vote libertarian, not that they shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Why misrepresent this (as so many have in this page) when we can all follow the link and read for ourselves?

More context: " The 1920s were the last decade in American history during which one could be genuinely optimistic about politics. Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron.

In the face of these realities, one would despair if one limited one’s horizon to the world of politics. I do not despair because I no longer believe that politics encompasses all possible futures of our world. In our time, the great task for libertarians is to find an escape from politics in all its forms — from the totalitarian and fundamentalist catastrophes to the unthinking demos that guides so-called “social democracy.”

So, he literally says he doesn't despair this.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions by saint_fiasco on Monday October 17, 2016 @03:52PM (#12728956)

how on earth can you trust someone's advice if they truly and honestly think like that?

Maybe Thiel is like an idiot savant who has a natural talent for investing. Just because John Nash was literally mentally ill doesn't mean he wasn't good at his job.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions by M_Grey on Monday October 17, 2016 @02:40PM (#12727906)

I'd say it's typical, and pathetic, not surprising. Lets not pretend that anyone particularly cares about his thoughts where they don't pertain to his incredibly narrow specialty, and more importantly, his money.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions by gmarx on Monday October 17, 2016 @04:20PM (#12729288)

You can trust his advice based on his past record e.g. wasn't he the one who told Zuckerberg to abandon his music sharing ambitions and focus on Facebook? Or you could not trust his advice based on his record, e.g. his credulous investments based on "peak oil". Whether or not he wrote a blog post with some whacko (possibly thought experiment?) idea in it has no bearing on the quality of his advice

[ Parent | on HN ]