I'm not a fan of Luckey's politics, but gosh I am super grateful for his work getting the Rift to production. I admire his persistence, his ability to assemble and obviously talented team.
I am sure he learned a lot from taking his garage prototype all the way through a billion dollar acquisition. And I hope he learned some things from his first dip into politics.
I look at someone like him, and though I can criticize his beliefs and actions, he's also a pretty normal kid who group up on YouTube and 4chan and is struggling with a pretty confusing soup of ideas, just like all of us. You never know what people are like on the inside, but I'm going to assume his heart is in the right place, and I look forward to seeing what he does next. I am absolutely certain he's caught glimpses of the VR future no one else has, and he'll do his darndest to bring them into the world.
Sorry, don't feel sorry for the guy worth however many millions. He could have easily avoided all the negative stuff by just not getting involved.
edit:
Thiel is one of the most prominent tech guys to support Trump. Zuckerberg defended him when people started calling for him to be removed.
The difference is that Luckey
1. was the face of the company
2. had issues with the community before any of the trump stuff came out. He pretty much stopped using Reddit because of it.
3. Is named in a lawsuit.
4. Supported Trump in a pretty childish way. Giving a donation or endorsing him is one thing. Trying to fund memes just looks bad.
For a guy who's main role seemed to be PR he did a poor job of it.
You're right, he could have continued with his work had he simply avoided ever giving anyone the impression he held any beliefs which varied from THE ORTHODOXY.
Being a weird is far more dangerous than being a normal. We agree.
Being gay is far more dangerous than being straight.
Being Muslim in a majority Christian or Hindu society is far more dangerous than being a adherent of the prevailing religion.
We could list examples all day, but it's a plainly obvious phenomenon. What I want to know is why so many people seem to act as if there's inherent moral superiority in being in the majority. There isn't.
(Also, cute bit of doublespeak characterizing a challenge to orthodoxy as "thought policing".)
Based on some of the things Trump has said about mexicans, muslims, women, etc, I'm finding it really hard to believe you don't understand why people would be offended by his supporters. If I told you all women are property and should be subservient to men, would you really want to have an honest conversation with me? Are we really at a point where "I grab them by the pussy" is something that is up for debate?
Oh come the fuck on, if that's the position you're going to take at least own up to it.
I asked why his continued employment ought to be predicated on never giving the impression that he holds beliefs that people like you find offensive.
You say "It's not." But it obviously was. We can all see that it was, that's what TFA (as well as all the other press about Lucky in the last 12 months) is about: His perceived beliefs, how unacceptable they are to you, and whether or not he ought to be cast out as a consequence.
What you meant to say was "He should have known better than to give the impression that he believes things that I, and people like me, disapprove of."
Why do you presume that someone who made the public statement "I am a libertarian who has publicly supported Ron Paul and Gary Johnson in the past, and I plan on voting for Gary in this election as well" is a Trump supporter?
VR is impressive tech, but is Luckey a time traveler now? He went back to 2008, publicly supported and voted for Ron Paul to give himself plausible deniability for his future support of Trump? (EDIT: I'm leaving this error here, but Bob Barr was the Libertarian party candidate in 2008, and Palmer wasn't yet voting age. He would have needed to time travel to 2012 and vote for Gary Johnson, I suppose.)
Are you unwilling to even consider the possibility that Palmer is actually a libertarian, and holds beliefs consistent with mainstream libertarian positions? The 'evidence' in that article includes him liking posts on Twitter indicating he probably dislikes Hillary Clinton (something he would have in common with virtually all libertarians), supports Wikileaks (again, pretty common among libertarians), and that he frequently likes tweets/retweets from his girlfriend (common among virtually all young adults in CURRENT_YEAR who like being in a relationship).
It's pretty flimsy stuff, but presumably all the author could find to prop up the main bit, that Palmer donated to a non-profit with roots on T_D (which, obviously, is a cesspool) that…never seemed to do much of anything as far as I can tell.
I'm not "surprised" people call him a Trump supporter as a consequence, people say all kinds of dumb and unfounded things every day. I'm asking you to provide evidence for the assertion you made, or perhaps to reflect on why you (and seemingly everyone else in our culture) are so quick to label anyone with whom you have any difference in ideology as THE BIG BAD OTHER.
> Are you unwilling to even consider the possibility that Palmer is actually a libertarian
No. He may be a libertarian. If I told you I was a democrat and then donated to republican groups, what would you call me? If my girlfriend publicity supported republicans? At some point you really have to start looking at actions and not words.
My initial rebuke to your argument is simple: Words are extremely cheap. He claims NOW that he is a libertarian but his actions say otherwise. He has also demonstrated a willingness to lie. You can see his comments here where he confirms and then denies that he posted under the account in question: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/22/palmer-luck...
I don't find any of this "flimsy" or circumstantial. He backed the wrong guy and then backtracked when he got exposed and trump's nastiness started to really come to light.
Again, I almost feel bad for him. But this lying little Trumpkin helped elect trump, and for that, I will not make excuses and try and defend him. He pushed some cool tech but that doesn't put him beyond reproach.
No one is beyond reproach. But it would be nice if those reproachments were saved for people's actual words and actions rather than a laundry list of prejudices and assumptions extrapolated from a single data point. It would be even nicer if we could agree that disapproval of one or more of someone's political opinions doesn't require that they be made UNTOUCHABLE and banished.
If you said you were a Democrat, and voted for Democrats, but dated a vocal Republican, and donated to non-profits who were doing work you believed would do some good in the world regardless of whether they passed ideological purity tests, I'd call you a breath of fresh air.
* He said he used a pro trump account and then said he didn't. Both can't be true so we know he is a liar\lying about this incident.
* He donated money to a pro trump org
* His girlfriend is\was a trump supporter
* His 'like'ing pattern seems to fall in line with what a Trump supporter may do
Maybe he is a libertarian now. Maybe not. It is very difficult to tell because he seems to have an issue with honesty and his actions are not aligning with his words.
I am sure he learned a lot from taking his garage prototype all the way through a billion dollar acquisition. And I hope he learned some things from his first dip into politics.
I look at someone like him, and though I can criticize his beliefs and actions, he's also a pretty normal kid who group up on YouTube and 4chan and is struggling with a pretty confusing soup of ideas, just like all of us. You never know what people are like on the inside, but I'm going to assume his heart is in the right place, and I look forward to seeing what he does next. I am absolutely certain he's caught glimpses of the VR future no one else has, and he'll do his darndest to bring them into the world.