[throwaway399]

Thiel was attacked nonstop and people were organizing to stop using PayPal which he is only tangentially affiliated with.

Uber CEO had to stop his collaboration as Lyft started catching up for the first time in a long time.

Elon also faced a lot of heat and had to qualify his statements. Negative reactions towards him were counteracted by his accomplishments and clean energy contributions.

I think people should collaborate but in a clandestine fashion.

Inviting Trump to Bay area would unleash all the rage against Trump towards the startup community. I'm just afraid it would be a bigger "throw stones at Google buses"

[saycheese]

Be afraid all you want, doesn't matter to me.

Thiel knew he'd be attacked, took a risk, and there's zero reason to believe he's not happy with the results; if you think Thiel cares what the "Bay Area" thinks, I'd be interested in your reasoning.

Uber's not even worth covering, they're currently a cluster F$&@ waiting to happen and the idea that it was somehow born of talking with Trump is what it is.

Bay Area and for the matter the greater tech community needs to engage the world, not withdraw from it.

[rfrank]

>Bay Area and for the matter the greater tech community needs to engage the world, not withdraw from it.

> Be afraid all you want, doesn't matter to me.

One of these things is not like the other.

[saycheese]

Right, one is addressing a single person that's said they afraid of talking in public for fear of blowback and another is directed to the Bay Area and greater tech community asking them to engage the world.

What am I missing?

[rfrank]

That the blowback from tech employees is a real thing which directly contributes to lack of dialog between people with different political opinions, and not caring about the individual while imploring the community at large to engage is a ridiculous and contradictory position.

A pair of riots in Berkeley within a month, San Jose during the election, the Brendan Eich situation, myriad letters from CEOs post election. To quote sama's recent post [1], "Almost everyone I asked was willing to talk to me, but almost none of them wanted me to use their names—even people from very red states were worried about getting “targeted by those people in Silicon Valley if they knew I voted for him”. One person in Silicon Valley even asked me to sign a confidentiality agreement before she would talk to me, as she worried she’d lose her job if people at her company knew she was a strong Trump supporter."

Care as much or little about the concerns of people not like you as you want, just don't act like you want to have a conversation with them too in the same breath.

1. http://blog.samaltman.com/what-i-heard-from-trump-supporters

[saycheese]

There is no contraction, engaging the world, especially those that may not agree with you, is potentially dangerous and if you're afraid to do so, then don't.

[rfrank]

> going out and engaging the world is potentially dangerous

Do you think this is reasonable in the context of expressing your support for the leader of your nation at your workplace? I certainly don't think so.

[gist]

> I think people should collaborate but in a clandestine fashion.

The fact that people can't even meet to have a discussion is just simply wrong.

Without communication between parties almost nothing will happen.