3 ms·
"A racist billionaire[1]" Penn Jillette has a great saying on this (paraphrasing): "Unless the person has explicitly said they're racist, claiming someone is
by bionsuba 10y ago
"A racist billionaire[1]"
Penn Jillette has a great saying on this (paraphrasing):
"Unless the person has explicitly said they're racist, claiming someone is racist requires the power to look into someone's heart, which no one has. The KKK and stormfront are very open that they are racists, and you can call those people racist because they say they are. You cannot make these sorts of claims without putting words into other people's mouth".
And you're putting words in someone's mouth. According to that article, Thiel believes that affirmative action is not helping the poor or disenfranchised, but is rather helping the middle and upper class people. Extrapolating racism from his statements is a giant leap in logic.
- x1798DE 10y agoFYI, I accidentally downvoted this. Sorry.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 10y agoYes but: https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/06/09/paypal-co-founder-peter-thiel-address-white-nationalist-friendly-“property-and-freedom https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/06/09/paypal-co-fou...
- dredmorbius 10y agoI've argued both sides of this. I don't believe in the absolutist case in either direction. If someone's making a plausible and reasonably consistent, and especially not self-serving case that they hold, or don't hold, some belief, I'll generally allow them to own it. I'll especially allow them to own it in preference to another party with a specific, partisan, self-serving, and most especially, non-credible axe to grind in denying that self-labeling. That said, if the self-claim is grossly inconsistent, self-serving, and implausible, I'll deny it. I'm not judging the current case either way. I'm not a fan of Gawkers, but am also hugely concerned with the precedent Thiel's made here.