I hesitate to even bring it up, but many of the tyrants of the 20th Century were responsible for the death of millions, and for decidedly political reasons. Does a politically neutral person object to calling Stalin a monster on the basis that, aside from his politics, he was a good family man?
(No, I'm not saying Peter Thiel is Stalin. Politics exists in a vast, vast spectrum - but I'm not convinced there is a place where that spectrum doesn't exist)
I'm not suggesting in any way that his actions are on the same level as Stalin's, but where is the "monster line" drawn? I don't see how you could ever answer that question without factoring in someone's own political opinions. So I don't know how you could do a politically neutral examination of Thiel's supposed monstrousness.
You added your parenthesis after I responded (or perhaps while I was responding). But nevertheless, I can't come close to relating the two. Nothing I am aware of with Thiel would make a reasonable person consider him to be a "monster".
This will be my last response to this, since I apparently forgot how many ultra-liberals that hate Thiel and everyone like him would be brought out by such a seemingly simple, non-controversial, genuine question that I posed to OP (not necessarily referring to you, but there seem to be alot of people backing up this opinion based upon nothing other than politics, which makes me sad both for HN and the state of political discourse in the US).
I'll follow your lead and say that this will be my last response too, because your post has shown to me that we're talking past each other entirely.
> there seem to be alot of people backing up this opinion based upon nothing other than politics
The point I've been making this whole time is that you simply cannot separate politics from "other" in the way you wish to. Politics is intertwined in every decision we make and every opinion we hold. The fact that you choose (without evidence) to label those you disagree with as "ultra-liberals" underlines this. You paint yourself as politically neutral yet you are clearly evaluating others in political terms.
We can't have "politically neutral" political discourse, it makes no sense. There is no "non-political Peter Thiel".
Making an analogy between two things/people/events/actions is not the same as claiming the two are equal.
Of course, Peter Thiel is nowhere near as bad as Stalin. Then again, "better than Stalin" is a pretty low bar.
Read: "My safety has never been at risk because of the consequences of someone's political leanings and have either never met or do not consider sufficiently valuable anyone whose safety is"
"Politically neutral" is a big qualifier to throw in there. You're basically asking why, ignoring his most controversial aspects, someone would find him controversial.
I'm a little unsure how anyone would even approach your question. Thiel is a deeply political person - member of the Libertarian party, for one - how does a "politically neutral" analysis of him rate that? Ignore his politics entirely? To do so is to remove the obvious reason that some consider him to be a "monster". It's certainly possible to consider libertarianism to be monstrous, if your politics aligns as such.
Even in the context of this article: he co-founded Palantir, who are a very controversial company, and will potentially assist the administration in mass deportations. Depending your political leanings, that may well make him monstrous. He co-wrote a book named "The Diversity Myth", statements in which had to apologise for in 2016. Again, those statements might make him monstrous to a person.