[HaveCourage]

Peter Thiel is a visionary. His scholarship fund accelerates kids lives into what they're passionate about instead of seeing them waste years in college.

He funds longevity, seasteading, and promotes people being definitive in their goals and working on things no one else is. He also personally funded the hunt for justice against an evil rag hiding behind genuine journalistic protections.

If you're on the wrong side of an issue from Peter Thiel, it's not because he's being reflexively contrarian, it's because he could write a 100 page thoughtful essay on why his position is better than any alternative.

The reason that Peter Thiel seems so contrarian is because so many other people are so cowardly. Shouldn't more billionaires be crushing bastards? Shouldn't more billionaires be funding medical research? Shouldn't more billionaires be publishing books to motivate the masses to create themselves the future that has been only dreamed of for the last few decades?

On the short list of people in this world who are doing a really really great job with what they have, Peter Thiel is at the top of my list.

Now the caveats. Violations of the 4th amendment suck, and if Palantir is part of them, it's not great. Trump is clearly not the best the business world had to offer. Christianity, not so fabulous.

I consider the man a legend and hope to see great things from him.

[ryandamm]

It's fair to say you and I disagree on a lot. Have you spoken with anyone who's affiliated with the scholarship fund / alternative to college? I have, at length, and walked away unimpressed with the "program". College needs reform, but I don't think he's courageously figured out the problem.

Not sure why you valorize his investment thesis (wouldn't curing third-world diseases be more heroic than solving aging in the first world?). But the Gawker affair does not make me respect him.

If it was so heroic, why wasn't it public from the beginning? I have no love for Gawker, but I do get hives when people use wealth to curtail speech. Especially when those same people stump for a candidate who has spoken out against the press, and suggested that we strengthen our nonexistent federal libel laws to restrict speech further.

So no, there's not much to like about Thiel, not for me, anyway. But we're all entitled to our opinions.

[solipsism]

Wow, you've certainly drunk some koolaid.

He funds seasteading

No he doesn't. He's all talk in that regard. What progress has actually been produced?

He also personally funded the hunt for justice against an evil rag hiding behind genuine journalistic protections.

He personally funded it, you say, as if it was some selfless act. He personally funded it because he had a very personal grudge. Not because he cares about journalism.

Shouldn't more billionaires be funding medical research?

Some are. Peter Theil is only funding medical research that has the potential to help him personally though.

You keep talking about this Ayn Randian as an altruistic figure, it's weird.

Violations of the 4th amendment suck, and if Palantir is part of them, it's not great. Trump is clearly not the best the business world had to offer. Christianity, not so fabulous.

Hmmm. Does If you're on the wrong side of an issue from Peter Thiel, it's not because he's being reflexively contrarian, it's because he could write a 100 page thoughtful essay on why his position is better than any alternative. only apply if it's not a position you are personally against?

[HaveCourage]

I think seasteading is stupid, however it shows a desire to experiment with governance itself.

Percentage wise how many bastards are crushed out of selflessness compared to vendetta? I think you'll find that the extra satisfaction of a grudge is needed to tip people into the honorable action.

Wouldn't any research Thiel funded that helped himself also help other 50 year old white guys? What's wrong with helping 50 year old white guys? (who will be 60-70 when the therapies are likely available)

If government surveillance is an commonly emerging property of modern governments, it could be said that doing it well instead of poorly may allow us to restrict its scope more. Thus better searching of the already never erasable data is better than gathering more data and searching it more poorly. Thus I have no evidence of Palantir doing anything wrong, however, I'm keeping an eye out.

[solipsism]

If government surveillance is an commonly emerging property of modern governments, it could be said that doing it well instead of poorly may allow us to restrict its scope more. Thus better searching of the already never erasable data is better than gathering more data and searching it more poorly.

Wow. That rationalization is worthy of Thiel himself!