Peter Thiel, YC, and hard decisions

Wow, this is the third time I've seen this link climbing up HN front page in the past hour [1][2]. I'm interested in this topic, why does it keep getting flagged?

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12727973 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12726970

Oh what a scholar!

sctb claims that it's user flags; hopefully he's right: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12728092

good to see Project Include standing up. now is a good time to stand up as an organization CEO, director, investor and declare where you stand. It could save your company lots of money down the road white-washing your history if Trump implements only part of the things he says he will. Ask the likes of Volkswagen & Daimler how they like their roots.

And don't tell me companies don't need to have an opinion. That was true 100 years ago not in the age of TTIP. But it could be that considering Thiel's investment portfolio that he does want actually more war. Who is the biggest spender right now in Cyber? (hint it's not just crappy IoT devices). Defense applications are way more expensive and proftable to build than consumer apps. Especially in times of fear.

Companies are people, so please YES do take a side and don't be a coward CEO hiding behind "it's politics therefore we should not speak of it at work".

I wish YC would have followed the example and I'm still waiting from S.Altman to say something on twitter that doesn't sound like an appalling excuse!

> Today, we struggle to rationalize Peter Thiel’s power and influence as he moves further and further out there. We were confused by his seasteading funding, angered by his negative views on women’s voting rights, amused by his reported fixation with living to 120, and annoyed by his keynoting the Republican National Convention.

He explains both his seasteading interest and his position on the apparent statistical inevitabilities of voting patterns in the very essay Pao linked (the link is on the words "negative views").

He explicitly states (whether he's lying or not is another matter, but let's remember the principle of charity) that he's not in favor of disenfranchising anyone within current political systems.

We can argue all day the egalitarian position, but if Thiel is right that the future is dim under current politics, and bright under libertarian politics, then there's a problem: do you sacrifice the future (potentially the future of humanity) for equality now, or do you sacrifice equality, or set up alternative political spaces with the characteristic that people who participate in those political spaces are disproportionately libertarian? Which may or may not, but probably would, mean relatively fewer women and minorities self-select to participate in those political spaces.