I lost nearly all respect for Thiel based on his opinions about science vs industry. For reference, his thinking that startups are in any way similar to academia in regards to scientific discovery is completely out there and ignores the obvious reality that startups don't produce scientific knowledge.

His backing of Trump simply reinforces my already poor opinion of him. He's never bothered thinking things through and has always had an arrogant streak where he thinks business beats everything. If you believe he's totally wrong you'd be a fool to work with him.

People who indulge in such activities are clearly breaking the law and should be reported. Pieter supporting Trump is legal!

> I don't want to associate with, or have someone benefit from my labor, or even profit from their insights if I have such moral disagreements.

So you don't want to associate with half the country? It's your choice, but do you see the importance of letting people have different opinions (as long as they are legally acceptable) and agree to disagree?

Being rich does not imply merit in science and knowledge, and certainly not in ethics.

How does Thiel feel about his choice, who has questioned the legitimacy of the American electoral process and outcome, in advance of the election - ipso facto if Trump does not win, the election must be illegitimate and a Clinton presidency also illegitimate? Perhaps Thiel feels OK with his choice. Perhaps he can dismiss that every paper of record on the planet has just gone ape shit over this issue in the last couple of hours. Maybe the tax cut Thiel thinks he's going to get from Trump is still worth it - that sort of selfishness would at least be rational.

But rational alone does not inoculate someone from having their judgment of character questioned. And in fact a questioning of their political ideology - in light of what Trump has said, it's an open question if Thiel prefers autocracy over having a Republic. It's not crazy to have this question for any of Trump's supporters in light of what Trump has said.

Tonight's and tomorrow's headlines are historic, shocking, alarming, but they're not really surprising because this sort of delegitimizing is a hallmark of Trump's modus operandi, having spent 7.5 years trying to delegitimize the current president with the blatant lie he was not a natural born citizen; now turning it into a pre-delegitimization of a would-be Clinton presidency by impugning the electoral process itself. This is a person who lays waste to everything he touches, and Peter Thiel is yet another person to get sucked into the Trump con vortex.

So at the very least, he's a sucker. It's just as likely that what you call success, was dumb blind luck by another name. He got lucky, despite being wholly deficient in evaluating Trump's character.

And I do not agree with the idea that it is antithetical to "diversity" to ask such questions, or challenge people who have more resources, and in effect more speech, on these issues.

No, he doesn't just do stuff. He has built many objectively successful companies and made a great deal of objective money. That is not an opinion. The rest of your post is a non-sequitur.

If you want to play a game of vaguery, you're on your own, Otherwise you're welcome to specifically point out which of my conclusions is unsupported by the available facts. There is a difference between a non-sequitur and editorialization.

And what if Peter Thiel did say this? What gives you the right to set what you consider to be the line over what I choose as the line?

Does that give either of us the right to shame someone publicly for that? I think it does sometimes, but I don't have a strictly categorical answer.

At what point do you consider the various beliefs indivisible? Maybe you believe in Trump's economic plan, but should you be held responsible if Trump also shoves his social agenda through and hurts millions of people?

The worst part in all this is that Trump has made a bunch of Democrats into litmus-test voters like the Republicans. I hope that the Democrats go back to their diverse cacophony afterward.

> And what if Peter Thiel did say this? What gives you the right to set what you consider to be the line over what I choose as the line?

The thirteenth amendment gives me that right (to choose who I work with.)

Is that right? At what point does that turn into bullying?

I don't have a good answer.

And do be aware that a person who would jail his opponent is never going to be so tolerant of you as you might be of him. It is the position that calls for tolerance only so long as it is weak.

I might suggest that an industry with a very small number of the exact population being targeted should do some serious soul searching about exactly what free speech (if campaign contributions are speech) they are standing by.

But perhaps criticizing someone who hounded Gawker out of existence for its expression is just too oppressive.

I'm pretty sure that comes along with those standard 'human rights' things.

The best way to get someone that according to you is doing something wrong to change their way is by talking to them and arguing with them. The worst way is to isolate them, it will only cement their relationship with the party that you object to stronger because that will be all that remains.

this is just another billionaire wanting his buddy to win so his racist policy against hiring Asians isn't prosecuted.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/the-white-flight-of-...

It's about the intellectual evolution of Derek Black, the son of the creator of the infamous white-power website Stormfront. He grew up believing in and advocating for a lot of very foul ideas. As the article describes it, the key turning point was when someone in his college - even knowing Derek's politics and history - invited him to a weekly Shabbat dinner:

Matthew decided his best chance to affect Derek’s thinking was not to ignore him or confront him, but simply to include him. “Maybe he’d never spent time with a Jewish person before,” Matthew remembered thinking.

The story seems to have a happy ending, with Derek's political about-face. The lesson in here seems incredibly apropos - rather than push out people who have wrongheaded views, pull them in closer and challenge their ideas. Use love instead of hatred.

Are you going to vote for Hillary, who has said she was against gay marriage as recent as 2012. According to your hero plan, you should not have anything to do with her, ever.

There are no unpersons who still participate peacefully in the political process, and it's best to keep it that way—Nazis included, as hard as that is to stomach.

No-platforming isn't just morally wrong, it's tactically wrong too: it only "works" when your group is in power. The moment you lose power, you'll be wishing you hadn't pushed so hard to shut up dissenters.

The more odious someone's political beliefs are, the more important it is they remain in the company of the sober and reasonable: it's the only chance society has to bring them back into the fold without bloodshed.

It's possible to respectfully and courteously disagree with even the most heinous beliefs. Characterization that prevents discourse is a danger to both the sides.

So I have no problem with nazis or other military ideologies - they just arrived at the future first.

At the end it will be us vs them by whatever criteria - it may be trekkies putting whovians in the gas chambers for all we know. I just hope that when the dust settles I will be among the right "us".

So these of my believes make me not care about other peoples ideologies - we are all doomed.

If Peter Thiel backs him, Trump should supposed to be gratefull and Peter Thiel would strengthen his position.

I don't believe he backs Trump as a sane entrepeneur, but as a investor. If Trump wins ( 1 debate could be enough), this is a good investment.