Just because someone has bad ideas (or ideas you disagree with) in one area, why would that mean all their ideas are bad?
To take an extreme example, Bobby Fischer is easily in the running for best chess player of all time. He was also an anti-semite. Does that somehow make his chess less good? Should we ignore that he was an anti-Semite? No! But should we cut all his games from chess books because of it?
Indeed, if you read many biographies one might quickly reach the conclusion that many of the world’s most accomplished men and women are also among its most flawed. Science, literature, and art would be set make many centuries if we had to discard all the work of those not meeting modern standards of decency.
To be clear, I don’t think Thiel is anywhere near as extreme a case as Fischer. I disagree with his politics (just the ordinary libertarian Baloney), but I think he is right on this point.
My advice to you would be to learn to separate ideas from the people that originate them, or you’ll miss out on so much great thought.
There are ideas I "disagree with", for example whether superhero movies are good. And then there is "disagreement" euphemism for "being actively harmful" and for "being unethical" and so one. Because people don't want to talk too badly, or sound impolite, so they hide behind euphemism.
I can say that we disagree about scrum and we disagree about slavery, and the word "disagreement" does not work the same in both cases.
There is also difference between listening to Fischer on chess and listening to someone like him on how things should be managed or organized. In the latter case his morality and opinions we "disagree with" matter much more.
> most accomplished men and women are also among its most flawed.
That is because their flaws were their competitive advantage. They did became presidents and powerful, because they were willing to be unethical and cruel. Those who were not willing to act in immoral way were less likely to rise to power and success.
That is why it makes sense to point it out. Because otherwise your morality boils down to "but it makes you rich/powerful/successful then it is ok". And meanwhile you ignore opinions of competitors who were not willing to go there. Because apparently opinions of people who are less willing to do anything to get their way matter less.
There are many chess players. There are many chess players playing very good. You don't need to promote the anti-semite chess player. You can also promote the one who does not propagate fascist world views.
Let' use the analogy for the sentence from Peter Thiel:
The statement that managers should know something besides management is not original at all. There are hundreds of people telling you that. It is common wisdom. I heard that 20 years ago and I am still hearing it.
So why promote Peter Thiel for saying that? There is no need at all to quote him. The quote is not original, nothing new, nothing special.
Nevertheless, the commenter decided to quote Peter Thiel on that and give him praise.
To take an extreme example, Bobby Fischer is easily in the running for best chess player of all time. He was also an anti-semite. Does that somehow make his chess less good? Should we ignore that he was an anti-Semite? No! But should we cut all his games from chess books because of it?
Indeed, if you read many biographies one might quickly reach the conclusion that many of the world’s most accomplished men and women are also among its most flawed. Science, literature, and art would be set make many centuries if we had to discard all the work of those not meeting modern standards of decency.
To be clear, I don’t think Thiel is anywhere near as extreme a case as Fischer. I disagree with his politics (just the ordinary libertarian Baloney), but I think he is right on this point.
My advice to you would be to learn to separate ideas from the people that originate them, or you’ll miss out on so much great thought.