3 ms·

> When I was a kid, the great debate was about how to defeat the Soviet Union. And we won. Now we are told that the great debate is about who gets to use which

by objclxt 10y ago

> When I was a kid, the great debate was about how to defeat the Soviet Union. And we won. Now we are told that the great debate is about who gets to use which bathroom. > This is a distraction from our real problems. Who cares? I guess in the 1950s and 60s all those people complaining they couldn't use the bathroom they wanted were just distracting from the real issue of the Commies. This is just such a baffling, nonsensical statement that I can only conclude Thiel is pursuing some kind of hidden agenda and this is all part of a massive con. Firstly, history shows us that who uses which bathroom is actually quite important. We used to have bathrooms with "Whites Only" written on them. We don't any more. Secondly, Thiel has a JD, so presumably knows that this issue is a fairly significant constitutional one, and a lot more nuanced than he lets on. Thirdly, the only people raising this debate are Republicans in right-wing areas. Nobody in Silicon Valley is debating this issue. Nobody. Who does Thiel think is "telling" us this is the "great debate"? It's just pandering, plain and simple.

ikeboy 10y ago
>Thirdly, the only people raising this debate are Republicans in right-wing areas. No. The recent attention started when Democrats in the Charlotte city council passed a law that "would allow transgender residents to use either a men’s or women’s bathroom, depending on the gender with which they identify." http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article61786967.html http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/ar...
- Jtsummers 10y ago
  The attention really started when the state of North Carolina's (Republican! led) legislature voted for weaker local governance and overrode the cities legislation (among other things). This is, of course, the same legislature that's so pro-freedom that they've actively suppressed local (city/county) run broadband services where companies like Time Warner wouldn't go.
  - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
    If you treat the "freedom" in "pro-freedom" as meaning "profit margins", everything works out.
tedunangst 10y ago
Did you intend to divide the country into two areas, right wing and Silicon Valley?
- objclxt 10y ago
  No - I'm pointing out Thiel is framing this as the "great debate", but nobody in the place he actually lives is debating it.
  - Turing_Machine 10y ago
    I'm not sure his speech was intended to only cover the place where he lives.
kyleashipley 10y ago
Did not watch the speech, but if I'm interpreting the transcript correctly, it sounds like he is telling the RNC that their attempts to pass laws restricting LGBTQ rights are a distraction from more important problems in business and technology, not that LGBTQ rights are not important. It seems like a critique of the current platform and a suggestion that Trump would focus his energy elsewhere, on an actual "great debate." Maybe I missed something, though!
- mc32 10y ago
  I think that's how it's meant to be interpreted. That they should focus on core issues (economics, jobs, security, equality, fairness, etc.) and not pander to a small interest group in order to raise money using an out-of-sync, losing cause. I think Repubs should see Trump as somewhat a liberator of Repubs from the tyranny of their previous ideology. Whether he wins or loses, he's freed them from the shackles of social conservatism which would ultimately make the party less relevant, over time. I mean, that was a dead end.
- HillRat 10y ago
  What he meant is virtually irrelevant; the crowd understood it -- as one would expect -- as LGBT rights being a distraction from important things (such as, I suppose, the fight against LGBT rights). More directly pertinent to HN, I think, is Thiel's lament that America was once "high-tech everywhere." How many investments, I wonder, has Thiel made outside the Bay Area?
- threatofrain 10y ago
  Your perspective is also how I interpreted Peter Thiel's speech, a focusing of GOP attention on economic issues, but sadly I think it's the GOP that has higher stakes in sexual cultural issues as get-out-to-vote mechanisms, and that's the segment that Ted Cruz appealed to. And I think that vote is so important that Peter Thiel's call to refocus GOP attention cannot be GOP strategy. The Christian base has been an important pillar to GOP power. The GOP used to / still treats Christians as first-class citizens, whereas the Democrats treated Christians with a secular attitude ("your religion is no more important than any other religion, and secular concerns should always be higher priority above christian concerns"). In individual states, such as Texas, the GOP is more brazen about including the unqualified God as an important pillar of their party platform. And the only high-consensus Christian issues since George Bush Jr. have been entirely about sexual issues, the top two being abortion and homosexuality. George Bush set a tone for the GOP party, and he sent a message to Christians that they would be #1 in the GOP, when he discussed a constitutional amendment restricting the definition of marriage. In that year all candidate from both parties discussed their favorite bible verses, and presented evidence of their small town church credentials. Peter Thiel might want economic and domestic policy to be the focus of the GOP party, but the GOP is not going to win without Christian energy. They will need to show that the top Christian consensus issues (entirely about sexuality) are going to receive the first-class attention that is worthy of the only true religion. That assurance, true or not, is what Ted Cruz brought to the table.
zerohp 10y ago
Moreover, the nation was able to debate (and protest) segregation while, at the same time, go to the moon and build the foundations for the computer revolution (among other things.) We can worry about bathrooms AND be builders.
b0sk 10y ago
Classic false dichotomy fallacy. You can go to moon AND at the same time have a debate about bathroom (which is essential btw)
Aloha 10y ago
You should really quote another line down in the transcript: "I don't pretend to agree with every plank in our party's platform. But fake culture wars only distract us from our economic decline"
BurningFrog 10y ago
The US vs Soviet Union conflict was about the future of humanity and the planet itself. Would the world be free, democratic and capitalistic OR under totalitarian oppression OR a radioactive unpopulated wasteland? I agree that the bathroom issue is not entirely unimportant, but does anyone seriously claim it is of similar dignity? Or that there aren't more important issues in 2016?

by objclxt 10y ago

ikeboy 10y ago

>Thirdly, the only people raising this debate are Republicans in right-wing areas. No. The recent attention started when Democrats in the Charlotte city council passed a law that "would allow transgender residents to use either a men’s or women’s bathroom, depending on the gender with which they identify." http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article61786967.html http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/ar...

Jtsummers 10y ago
The attention really started when the state of North Carolina's (Republican! led) legislature voted for weaker local governance and overrode the cities legislation (among other things). This is, of course, the same legislature that's so pro-freedom that they've actively suppressed local (city/county) run broadband services where companies like Time Warner wouldn't go.
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  If you treat the "freedom" in "pro-freedom" as meaning "profit margins", everything works out.

tedunangst 10y ago

Did you intend to divide the country into two areas, right wing and Silicon Valley?

objclxt 10y ago
No - I'm pointing out Thiel is framing this as the "great debate", but nobody in the place he actually lives is debating it.
- Turing_Machine 10y ago
  I'm not sure his speech was intended to only cover the place where he lives.

kyleashipley 10y ago

Did not watch the speech, but if I'm interpreting the transcript correctly, it sounds like he is telling the RNC that their attempts to pass laws restricting LGBTQ rights are a distraction from more important problems in business and technology, not that LGBTQ rights are not important. It seems like a critique of the current platform and a suggestion that Trump would focus his energy elsewhere, on an actual "great debate." Maybe I missed something, though!

mc32 10y ago
I think that's how it's meant to be interpreted. That they should focus on core issues (economics, jobs, security, equality, fairness, etc.) and not pander to a small interest group in order to raise money using an out-of-sync, losing cause. I think Repubs should see Trump as somewhat a liberator of Repubs from the tyranny of their previous ideology. Whether he wins or loses, he's freed them from the shackles of social conservatism which would ultimately make the party less relevant, over time. I mean, that was a dead end.
HillRat 10y ago
What he meant is virtually irrelevant; the crowd understood it -- as one would expect -- as LGBT rights being a distraction from important things (such as, I suppose, the fight against LGBT rights). More directly pertinent to HN, I think, is Thiel's lament that America was once "high-tech everywhere." How many investments, I wonder, has Thiel made outside the Bay Area?
threatofrain 10y ago
Your perspective is also how I interpreted Peter Thiel's speech, a focusing of GOP attention on economic issues, but sadly I think it's the GOP that has higher stakes in sexual cultural issues as get-out-to-vote mechanisms, and that's the segment that Ted Cruz appealed to. And I think that vote is so important that Peter Thiel's call to refocus GOP attention cannot be GOP strategy. The Christian base has been an important pillar to GOP power. The GOP used to / still treats Christians as first-class citizens, whereas the Democrats treated Christians with a secular attitude ("your religion is no more important than any other religion, and secular concerns should always be higher priority above christian concerns"). In individual states, such as Texas, the GOP is more brazen about including the unqualified God as an important pillar of their party platform. And the only high-consensus Christian issues since George Bush Jr. have been entirely about sexual issues, the top two being abortion and homosexuality. George Bush set a tone for the GOP party, and he sent a message to Christians that they would be #1 in the GOP, when he discussed a constitutional amendment restricting the definition of marriage. In that year all candidate from both parties discussed their favorite bible verses, and presented evidence of their small town church credentials. Peter Thiel might want economic and domestic policy to be the focus of the GOP party, but the GOP is not going to win without Christian energy. They will need to show that the top Christian consensus issues (entirely about sexuality) are going to receive the first-class attention that is worthy of the only true religion. That assurance, true or not, is what Ted Cruz brought to the table.

zerohp 10y ago

Moreover, the nation was able to debate (and protest) segregation while, at the same time, go to the moon and build the foundations for the computer revolution (among other things.) We can worry about bathrooms AND be builders.

b0sk 10y ago

Classic false dichotomy fallacy. You can go to moon AND at the same time have a debate about bathroom (which is essential btw)

Aloha 10y ago

You should really quote another line down in the transcript: "I don't pretend to agree with every plank in our party's platform. But fake culture wars only distract us from our economic decline"

BurningFrog 10y ago

The US vs Soviet Union conflict was about the future of humanity and the planet itself. Would the world be free, democratic and capitalistic OR under totalitarian oppression OR a radioactive unpopulated wasteland? I agree that the bathroom issue is not entirely unimportant, but does anyone seriously claim it is of similar dignity? Or that there aren't more important issues in 2016?