[closeparen]

Where has SV claimed to be tolerant of conservative thought? The suggestion that it claims to or ought to welcome racist/sexist/homophobic/anti-welfare-state politics did not appear to arrive on the scene until the fallout of the Damore memo.

[Fins]

>racist/sexist/homophobic/anti-welfare-state politics

This is not exactly what "conservative thought" is, but the conflation does nicely demonstrate SV's toxic mix of ignorance and intolerance.

[Barrin92]

Thiel is pretty deep into the 'neoreactionary' subculture with a distinct anti-democratic and racist bent. You're right to say that this isn't exactly conservative thought, but it is the sort of thought that comes from the people who are criticising the valley from the inside. The Curtis Yarvin types seem to be involved in the newest criticism against 'valley liberalism' more than genuinely conservative groups.

I've never seen much opposition to your run off the mill conservatism you find anywhere in the business world.

[Fins]

He well might be, although the accusations of racism all seem to point at some very anciuent and rather vague hearsay.

Economically SV may not be too far from the mainstream, because really, if you drive away not only Thiel but the rest of VCs, who's gonna throw millions on your new world-changing blockchain crowdsourced augmented-reality chat app?!

Socially, though, SV positions itself far, far left of not only mainstream, but even of the outer fringes of common sense. Which comes out quite ironic in the end, e.g. when you look at tyhe stuff in Damore's lawsuit (the ones still proceeding) vs. the fact that Google is simultaneously being sued for underpaying women.

[closeparen]

You'll find plenty of support for disruption of burdensome and anti-consumer regulatory regimes (see: ridesharing), a mix of free traders and protectionists, opponents of price controls, advocates to unleash private capital to fix societal problems (see: YIMBYs), advocates to reduce the administrative burden of redistribution schemes (see: UBI), and a number of other center-right positions.

What gets you in trouble here is talking about pro-life family values, personal responsibility, and how marginalized groups who are over/under represented in certain outcomes must deserve it.

[Fins]

When it comes to really big money principles often go right out the window...

There might be some diversity of economic matterts; depends on whether you make money on walking through the outer fringes of legality (e.g. AirBnB) or not. On social issues that you mention SV is far more of an echo chamber.

Although I do wonder where you're getting the idea about groups that "deserve it". Personal responsibility, vs. identity politics seems to be a rather large dividing line between liberals and conservatives, and "deserve it" as applied to groups is a liberal belief, not conservative.