Where is all the concern involving the fact that Peter Thiel was investing in a regime where there is a death penalty for being gay in the first place, why does that get a pass and all the concern falls on his supposed personal safety.
This argument isn't about the fact that Saudi Arabia is ridiculously oppressive to gay people, it is about scoring points to make Peter Thiel look better.
> Where is all the concern involving the fact that Peter Thiel was investing in a regime where there is a death penalty for being gay in the first place, why does that get a pass and all the concern falls on his supposed personal safety.
I don't believe gay people should be excluded from economic opportunity based on their sexuality or concerns for their sexuality, nor do they forfeit their right to safety or privacy. I don't personally think western countries or people should invest in or have close ties with Saudi, but I don't think those who do are automatically bad or wrong.
> This argument isn't about the fact that Saudi Arabia is ridiculously oppressive to gay people, it is about scoring points to make Peter Thiel look better.
Taking down bullies who oust gay people makes him look fine to me.
Nobody is talking about excluding Thiel from investing in Saudi Arabia, or forfeiting his right to safety or privacy.
What is being questioned here is the narrative that Gawker put him in any kind of serious risk wrt Saudi Arabia, or that his actions against Gawker were taken in defense of gay people's privacy.
He obviously doesn't care much about the rights of gay people, or have many personal safety concerns if he's investing massive amounts into one of the most gay-oppressive regimes on earth, yet he gets a full pass here from you, and Gawker deserved to be destroyed as a company.
Why?
I assure you Saudi Arabia is a much bigger "bully" to gay people than Gawker ever was, yet Thiel has no problem enabling it, and you apparently have no problem with him doing so either.
> Nobody is talking about excluding Thiel from investing in Saudi Arabia, or forfeiting his right to safety or privacy.
They were. They said he was worried that his investments would be discriminated against if it was found out that he was gay.
Deplorable really. Trying to make out like the bullying journalists from that two bit gossip rag were fine to oust him as gay because he is greedy or rich or something. Doesn't make it okay.
> I assure you Saudi Arabia is a much bigger "bully" to gay people than Gawker ever was, yet Thiel has no problem enabling it, and you apparently have no problem with him doing so either.
I have no problem with gay people investing in what they choose to and not being discriminated against due to their sexuality. Sounds like you do.
I’m not a fan of Thiel at all, but the “offensive” article in Gawker actually made me empathize with him. It’s the most flattering thing written about him, and it made me briefly consider him to be human. Those feelings were short-lived.
