12 ms·

Peter Thiel: Fake Culture Wars Only Distract Us from Our Economic Decline

47 points by spking 10y ago

burnitdown 10y ago
The two party system really sucks and I find it really troubling when LGBT are mocked by liberals for being conservative (eg Caitlyn Jenner).
- oh_sigh 10y ago
  That's an old view of the republican party. They were staunchly against gays, and the democrats didn't exactly embrace gays, but they didn't want to make their lives miserable for being gay. But, we have a new republican party now - one that is centered on Trump at the moment and is entirely concerned with the economics of the middle/working class. I'm glad to see that's here. I've always been conservative leaning, but couldn't countenance being a republican because of their old social views which I thought to be completely backwards. Now that they've dropped that, and (I think) embraced identity differences, I am more than willing to throw my hat in with them.
  - pinaceae 10y ago
    what? have you looked at the positions of the current candidate for VP? the various "bathroom" laws, as currently exhibited in Carolina? the republicans, especially the evangelicals amongst them are pro LGBT. what. the. hell. trump's speech got praise by david duke. the grand-wizard of the KKK, in case that isn't clear. and this is the republican party platform. thiel right in the middle of it. pro big government, how else will you deport 11mio people, enforce law and order and build that wall? libertarian MY ASS.
    - elgabogringo 10y ago
      People always drag out david duke, but how many Republican offices did that guy ever hold? ZERO. Meanwhile, how about Democrat Robert Byrd who was an ex-KKK segregationist that was in the senate for FORTY YEARS! Democrats are the part of slavery and segregation. They fought for slavery, they fought for segregation, they voted against the civil rights acts. TIL.
      - ZeroGravitas 10y ago
        This is a bit of a backhanded-compliment. People are genuinely surprised, if they don't know the history, that the republican's weren't the party of slavery. Just meditate on that fact for a moment.
      - pinaceae 10y ago
        you realize i am talking about current events, right? show me robert byrd's twitter postings please - vs. trump and duke. if you truly believe that today's democrat party, the one with the black president, is pro-slavery and pro-racism, well, good riddance then.
        elgabogringo 10y ago
        A) Duke has nothing to do with the republican party. It's not intellectually honest to keep bringing up David Duke as a proof-point that Republicans are racist when you dismiss that only six years ago there was a KKK grand cyclops in the Senate as a Democrat. B) I don't think Trump is racist. It may also shock you that, despite being the party of the slavery and segregation, I don't think Democrats are racist either. In fact, I am fine having a long political discussion about ideas without ever labeling the other side with a scary name.
  - shrewduser 10y ago
    the biggest problem i have with trump is his seeming stance on protectionism and anti globalism. but like most things he says, i'm not sure if he means it.
    - Trundle 10y ago
      That's exactly how he plans to help the working class no? I don't want to get in to whether it will help, just pointing out that you're basically saying "my biggest problem with Trump is the part of his platform you find redeeming".
    - elgabogringo 10y ago
      Is trump for protectionism or just fair trade agreements?
  - lnrdgmz 10y ago
    The Republican party has hardly dropped its old social views. Its 2016 platform[1] continues to call for a ban to same-sex marriage, and goes so far as to say that LGBT persons should not be entitled to anti-discriminatory protections. This is despite an attempt by more socially moderate Republicans to craft a more inclusive platform[2]. Its nominee may be an unconventional Republican, but the GOP is still the Grand Old Party. [1] https://prod-static-ngop-pbl.s3.amazonaws.com/media/documents/DRAFT_12_FINAL[1]-ben_1468872234.pdf https://prod-static-ngop-pbl.s3.amazonaws.com/media/document... [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/us/politics/republican-convention-issues.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/us/politics/republican-con...
  - sp527 10y ago
    Have you actually read his tax plan? "If you are single and earn less than $25,000, or married and jointly earn less than $50,000, you will not owe any income tax. That removes nearly 75 million households – over 50% – from the income tax rolls. They get a new one page form to send the IRS saying, 'I win,'" "All other Americans will get a simpler tax code with four brackets – 0%, 10%, 20% and 25% – instead of the current seven. This new tax code eliminates the marriage penalty and the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) while providing the lowest tax rate since before World War II." "No business of any size, from a Fortune 500 to a mom and pop shop to a freelancer living job to job, will pay more than 15% of their business income in taxes." I think I'll just leave it there. If you read that and still think "this is the man for the job", then I'm not sure what more can be said. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform
    - blhack 10y ago
      >I think I'll just leave it there. I've found that usually when people say things like this, as if the conclusion is extremely obvious, it's because they actually can't articulate why they have the position that they have. Could you better articulate your point? Here's what I know of what Trump has said: 1) Yes, considerably less tax revenue 2) Which is justifiable because of a massive reduction of our military, and because of vague "waste fraud and abuse". I guess what I'm getting at is: every single politician talks about cutting taxes. I think there is quite a bit more to be said on this topic.
      - runamok 10y ago
        I have only heard him say he will increase defense spending. Ref: http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/03/09/trump-i-would-increase-military-spending/ http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/03/09/trump-i-would-incr... Here is a back of the envelope accounting of his plan: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/03/07/donald-trumps-impossible-fiscal-plan/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/03/07/... All politicians are somewhat hand wavy about getting costs and revenues to line up. Most don't just completely make shit up.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
thedevil 10y ago
Which is more brave? (a) for someone to say that they're proud to be gay at a republican convention (b) for someone in Silicon Valley to openly support Trump I'm actually not sure.
- adrenalinelol 10y ago
  I don't agree with all of Thiel's politics (I do identify as a libertarian thou), but I do respect the amount of courage it took to speak at this years RNC. The amount of disdain he'll receive from the Valley will be something else.
  - thedevil 10y ago
    I disagree with Thiel a lot too, but I always recommend everyone to read his thoughts. He thinks independently and is smart. Thus, from him you can pick up interesting ideas that you won't get elsewhere.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- oh_sigh 10y ago
  I suspect B. I'm sure there are a lot of Trump supporters in SV, but they largely remain quiet because, I suspect, they don't want their careers/connections negatively harmed by people who think that a Trump presidency will be the end of civilization. He got a standing ovation at the RNC. No longer do the social conservatives/evangelicals own the Republican party. It's about time.
- shrewduser 10y ago
  he got an extremely positive reaction for being proud to be gay in the video. i think obviously it's b.
  - thedevil 10y ago
    It's a little disappointing that it takes so much bravery to disagree in Silicon Valley. Supposed, it's a place of brave ideas and independent thinking. But in reality, there's a giant groupthink going on there. Disclaimer: I don't live in Silicon Valley but I mostly admire it. Also I disagree with Thiel myself though I don't hold it against him.
sp527 10y ago
No. I'm not going to be baited by ignorant people. If you think our government can experience that kind of contraction in tax receipts without there being catastrophic macroeconomic consequences, I have nothing to say to you. The Tax Policy Center (apparently nonpartisan) drafted a review of the plan - go read that if you're curious. I'd like to see tax reform. I'd like to see it executed by someone who isn't a raving "billionaire" lunatic with a fairly transparent agenda to lower his own tax bill.
- internaut 10y ago
  You should really try explaining it. Milton Friedman had a simple flat tax system too. I think Estonia and maybe Latvia have been using it.
  - sp527 10y ago
    I don't think I've ever seen someone reference former Soviet bloc nations as exemplars of economic prosperity...
- dang 10y ago
  > I'm not going to be baited by ignorant people. This comment breaks the HN guidelines by being uncivil. We ban accounts that do that, so please don't do that, regardless of how right you are. If you're not going to be baited, you needn't comment about it, and definitely please don't insult the people you're not going to be baited by. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12141934 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12141934 and marked it off-topic.
ZeroGravitas 10y ago
I understood this to be an attack on basically everything the Republican party stands for. Which seemed far braver than saying he was proud to be gay (which to be clear, was also brave in this context). But everyone seems to assume that the "fake culture wars" are something the Democrats made up, and the Republicans are just fighting for the natural state of affairs, when it seems pretty clear to me that stirring people up about this stuff (e.g. the southern strategy of driving black people to the democratic party so that racists white people will vote republican, or recasting gay marriage as an attack on traditional marriage) is basically what lead to the modern malaise of the Republican party and Trump. There must be a lot of people who want "republican" style economic ideas that will vote Libertarian or even Democrat this year, just to avoid being associated with hate. So his comment makes much more sense to me if you replace "but" with "because": I don't pretend to agree with every plank in our party's platform. _Because_ fake culture wars only distract us from our economic decline. That fits in neatly with the bit about stopping fighting expensive wars and focus on the economy. It also fits in with him being a proudly gay Republican (and not directly related to Thiel but the most famous transgender woman in America is also a republican). Yet everyone else is reading this the opposite way to me, so maybe I'm wrong?
foldr 10y ago
>Similarly for the more rigorous checks of people coming from countries having known radical islamist ties I'm not going to touch the rest of your nonsense, but this is an utterly shameless attempt to rewrite history. You know perfectly well that Trump called on several occasions for a ban on all Muslims entering the US, regardless of origin. That is indefensible bigotry. I think you must know that it is indefensible because you tried to gloss over it.
- jazzyk 10y ago
  You (and many other people) tend to omit one very important detail: he called for a temporary ban, "until we figure out what the hell is going on". This was said in context of the refugee crisis in Europe.
  - foldr 10y ago
    So temporary bigotry is ok then? If he'd really wanted a temporary ban (which would still, obviously, be indefensible), he'd have set out clear criteria for when it would end. Someone who casually throws out insane and bigoted policy proposals, without showing any evidence whatsoever of having seriously thought them through, is not fit to be President. I don't have much time for people who act as apologists for this kind of behavior and help to maintain the illusion that what Trump says is anywhere in the ballpark of actual political discourse. This is a crisis. Every time someone makes bogus arguments for taking Trump seriously as a political figure, we're edging closer to a disaster that could take decades to recover from. It's not fun and games at this point. History will judge us. And your pro-Trump comments will be on record forever.
    - jazzyk 10y ago
      >It's not fun and games at this point. History will judge us. And your pro-Trump comments will be on record forever Wow. Take a deep breath and tone down your hysteria a bit: 1. How does adding context to a comment taken out of context makes me "pro-Trump"? 2. How is properly vetting immigrants, in particular from high-risk countries, bigotry?
cholantesh 10y ago
>Instead of going to Mars, we have invaded the Middle East. We don't need to see Hillary Clinton's deleted emails: her incompetence is in plain sight. She pushed for a war in Libya, and today it's a training ground for ISIS. On this most important issue, Donald Trump is right. It's time to end the era of stupid wars and rebuild our country. What? Isn't Trump for _escalation_ in the middle east? This makes no sense.
amyjess 10y ago
In general, the whole "social issues are just distractions from economic problems, which are the only issues that matter" attitude taken by Thiel as a huge red flag. Peter Thiel doesn't have to worry about being forced to use the wrong bathroom. Peter Thiel doesn't have to worry about being impregnated by a rapist and forced to carry the baby to term. Peter Thiel doesn't have to worry about shot by the police while his hands are up because the cops are afraid of his skin color. And evidently Peter Thiel is so disconnected from ordinary life that he's forgotten that he has to worry about being denied service because of his partner's gender. These issues are real issues to matter to real people, and for some of us (including me, a lesbian trans woman), they are our top priority. The only reason he's saying this is because either he's lucky enough to be unaffected or he thinks he's unaffected. If Thiel thinks these issues are "fake", then he doesn't belong in a position of power, and I am automatically skeptical of any candidate he endorses. It's just like last year, when Obergefell vs. Hodges happened, and immediately the anti-TPP crowd started claiming that Obergefell vs. Hodges was just a smokescreen meant to distract people from TPP being put on the fast track. I'm sorry, but my and more importantly my friends' ability to marry whoever we want is deeply important and very much real. All that little outburst by the anti-TPP crowd did is prove to me that the anti-TPP agenda is opposed to the LGBT rights movement. They've basically guaranteed that I'll never speak out against the TPP.

47 points by spking 10y ago

The two party system really sucks and I find it really troubling when LGBT are mocked by liberals for being conservative (eg Caitlyn Jenner).

oh_sigh 10y ago
That's an old view of the republican party. They were staunchly against gays, and the democrats didn't exactly embrace gays, but they didn't want to make their lives miserable for being gay. But, we have a new republican party now - one that is centered on Trump at the moment and is entirely concerned with the economics of the middle/working class. I'm glad to see that's here. I've always been conservative leaning, but couldn't countenance being a republican because of their old social views which I thought to be completely backwards. Now that they've dropped that, and (I think) embraced identity differences, I am more than willing to throw my hat in with them.
- pinaceae 10y ago
  what? have you looked at the positions of the current candidate for VP? the various "bathroom" laws, as currently exhibited in Carolina? the republicans, especially the evangelicals amongst them are pro LGBT. what. the. hell. trump's speech got praise by david duke. the grand-wizard of the KKK, in case that isn't clear. and this is the republican party platform. thiel right in the middle of it. pro big government, how else will you deport 11mio people, enforce law and order and build that wall? libertarian MY ASS.
  - elgabogringo 10y ago
    People always drag out david duke, but how many Republican offices did that guy ever hold? ZERO. Meanwhile, how about Democrat Robert Byrd who was an ex-KKK segregationist that was in the senate for FORTY YEARS! Democrats are the part of slavery and segregation. They fought for slavery, they fought for segregation, they voted against the civil rights acts. TIL.
    - ZeroGravitas 10y ago
      This is a bit of a backhanded-compliment. People are genuinely surprised, if they don't know the history, that the republican's weren't the party of slavery. Just meditate on that fact for a moment.
    - pinaceae 10y ago
      you realize i am talking about current events, right? show me robert byrd's twitter postings please - vs. trump and duke. if you truly believe that today's democrat party, the one with the black president, is pro-slavery and pro-racism, well, good riddance then.
      - elgabogringo 10y ago
        A) Duke has nothing to do with the republican party. It's not intellectually honest to keep bringing up David Duke as a proof-point that Republicans are racist when you dismiss that only six years ago there was a KKK grand cyclops in the Senate as a Democrat. B) I don't think Trump is racist. It may also shock you that, despite being the party of the slavery and segregation, I don't think Democrats are racist either. In fact, I am fine having a long political discussion about ideas without ever labeling the other side with a scary name.
- shrewduser 10y ago
  the biggest problem i have with trump is his seeming stance on protectionism and anti globalism. but like most things he says, i'm not sure if he means it.
  - Trundle 10y ago
    That's exactly how he plans to help the working class no? I don't want to get in to whether it will help, just pointing out that you're basically saying "my biggest problem with Trump is the part of his platform you find redeeming".
  - elgabogringo 10y ago
    Is trump for protectionism or just fair trade agreements?
- lnrdgmz 10y ago
  The Republican party has hardly dropped its old social views. Its 2016 platform[1] continues to call for a ban to same-sex marriage, and goes so far as to say that LGBT persons should not be entitled to anti-discriminatory protections. This is despite an attempt by more socially moderate Republicans to craft a more inclusive platform[2]. Its nominee may be an unconventional Republican, but the GOP is still the Grand Old Party. [1] https://prod-static-ngop-pbl.s3.amazonaws.com/media/documents/DRAFT_12_FINAL[1]-ben_1468872234.pdf https://prod-static-ngop-pbl.s3.amazonaws.com/media/document... [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/us/politics/republican-convention-issues.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/us/politics/republican-con...
- sp527 10y ago
  Have you actually read his tax plan? "If you are single and earn less than $25,000, or married and jointly earn less than $50,000, you will not owe any income tax. That removes nearly 75 million households – over 50% – from the income tax rolls. They get a new one page form to send the IRS saying, 'I win,'" "All other Americans will get a simpler tax code with four brackets – 0%, 10%, 20% and 25% – instead of the current seven. This new tax code eliminates the marriage penalty and the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) while providing the lowest tax rate since before World War II." "No business of any size, from a Fortune 500 to a mom and pop shop to a freelancer living job to job, will pay more than 15% of their business income in taxes." I think I'll just leave it there. If you read that and still think "this is the man for the job", then I'm not sure what more can be said. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform
  - blhack 10y ago
    >I think I'll just leave it there. I've found that usually when people say things like this, as if the conclusion is extremely obvious, it's because they actually can't articulate why they have the position that they have. Could you better articulate your point? Here's what I know of what Trump has said: 1) Yes, considerably less tax revenue 2) Which is justifiable because of a massive reduction of our military, and because of vague "waste fraud and abuse". I guess what I'm getting at is: every single politician talks about cutting taxes. I think there is quite a bit more to be said on this topic.
    - runamok 10y ago
      I have only heard him say he will increase defense spending. Ref: http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/03/09/trump-i-would-increase-military-spending/ http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/03/09/trump-i-would-incr... Here is a back of the envelope accounting of his plan: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/03/07/donald-trumps-impossible-fiscal-plan/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/03/07/... All politicians are somewhat hand wavy about getting costs and revenues to line up. Most don't just completely make shit up.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

thedevil 10y ago

Which is more brave? (a) for someone to say that they're proud to be gay at a republican convention (b) for someone in Silicon Valley to openly support Trump I'm actually not sure.

adrenalinelol 10y ago
I don't agree with all of Thiel's politics (I do identify as a libertarian thou), but I do respect the amount of courage it took to speak at this years RNC. The amount of disdain he'll receive from the Valley will be something else.
- thedevil 10y ago
  I disagree with Thiel a lot too, but I always recommend everyone to read his thoughts. He thinks independently and is smart. Thus, from him you can pick up interesting ideas that you won't get elsewhere.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
oh_sigh 10y ago
I suspect B. I'm sure there are a lot of Trump supporters in SV, but they largely remain quiet because, I suspect, they don't want their careers/connections negatively harmed by people who think that a Trump presidency will be the end of civilization. He got a standing ovation at the RNC. No longer do the social conservatives/evangelicals own the Republican party. It's about time.
shrewduser 10y ago
he got an extremely positive reaction for being proud to be gay in the video. i think obviously it's b.
- thedevil 10y ago
  It's a little disappointing that it takes so much bravery to disagree in Silicon Valley. Supposed, it's a place of brave ideas and independent thinking. But in reality, there's a giant groupthink going on there. Disclaimer: I don't live in Silicon Valley but I mostly admire it. Also I disagree with Thiel myself though I don't hold it against him.

sp527 10y ago

No. I'm not going to be baited by ignorant people. If you think our government can experience that kind of contraction in tax receipts without there being catastrophic macroeconomic consequences, I have nothing to say to you. The Tax Policy Center (apparently nonpartisan) drafted a review of the plan - go read that if you're curious. I'd like to see tax reform. I'd like to see it executed by someone who isn't a raving "billionaire" lunatic with a fairly transparent agenda to lower his own tax bill.

internaut 10y ago
You should really try explaining it. Milton Friedman had a simple flat tax system too. I think Estonia and maybe Latvia have been using it.
- sp527 10y ago
  I don't think I've ever seen someone reference former Soviet bloc nations as exemplars of economic prosperity...
dang 10y ago
> I'm not going to be baited by ignorant people. This comment breaks the HN guidelines by being uncivil. We ban accounts that do that, so please don't do that, regardless of how right you are. If you're not going to be baited, you needn't comment about it, and definitely please don't insult the people you're not going to be baited by. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12141934 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12141934 and marked it off-topic.

ZeroGravitas 10y ago

I understood this to be an attack on basically everything the Republican party stands for. Which seemed far braver than saying he was proud to be gay (which to be clear, was also brave in this context). But everyone seems to assume that the "fake culture wars" are something the Democrats made up, and the Republicans are just fighting for the natural state of affairs, when it seems pretty clear to me that stirring people up about this stuff (e.g. the southern strategy of driving black people to the democratic party so that racists white people will vote republican, or recasting gay marriage as an attack on traditional marriage) is basically what lead to the modern malaise of the Republican party and Trump. There must be a lot of people who want "republican" style economic ideas that will vote Libertarian or even Democrat this year, just to avoid being associated with hate. So his comment makes much more sense to me if you replace "but" with "because": I don't pretend to agree with every plank in our party's platform. _Because_ fake culture wars only distract us from our economic decline. That fits in neatly with the bit about stopping fighting expensive wars and focus on the economy. It also fits in with him being a proudly gay Republican (and not directly related to Thiel but the most famous transgender woman in America is also a republican). Yet everyone else is reading this the opposite way to me, so maybe I'm wrong?

foldr 10y ago

>Similarly for the more rigorous checks of people coming from countries having known radical islamist ties I'm not going to touch the rest of your nonsense, but this is an utterly shameless attempt to rewrite history. You know perfectly well that Trump called on several occasions for a ban on all Muslims entering the US, regardless of origin. That is indefensible bigotry. I think you must know that it is indefensible because you tried to gloss over it.

jazzyk 10y ago
You (and many other people) tend to omit one very important detail: he called for a temporary ban, "until we figure out what the hell is going on". This was said in context of the refugee crisis in Europe.
- foldr 10y ago
  So temporary bigotry is ok then? If he'd really wanted a temporary ban (which would still, obviously, be indefensible), he'd have set out clear criteria for when it would end. Someone who casually throws out insane and bigoted policy proposals, without showing any evidence whatsoever of having seriously thought them through, is not fit to be President. I don't have much time for people who act as apologists for this kind of behavior and help to maintain the illusion that what Trump says is anywhere in the ballpark of actual political discourse. This is a crisis. Every time someone makes bogus arguments for taking Trump seriously as a political figure, we're edging closer to a disaster that could take decades to recover from. It's not fun and games at this point. History will judge us. And your pro-Trump comments will be on record forever.
  - jazzyk 10y ago
    >It's not fun and games at this point. History will judge us. And your pro-Trump comments will be on record forever Wow. Take a deep breath and tone down your hysteria a bit: 1. How does adding context to a comment taken out of context makes me "pro-Trump"? 2. How is properly vetting immigrants, in particular from high-risk countries, bigotry?

cholantesh 10y ago

>Instead of going to Mars, we have invaded the Middle East. We don't need to see Hillary Clinton's deleted emails: her incompetence is in plain sight. She pushed for a war in Libya, and today it's a training ground for ISIS. On this most important issue, Donald Trump is right. It's time to end the era of stupid wars and rebuild our country. What? Isn't Trump for _escalation_ in the middle east? This makes no sense.

amyjess 10y ago

In general, the whole "social issues are just distractions from economic problems, which are the only issues that matter" attitude taken by Thiel as a huge red flag. Peter Thiel doesn't have to worry about being forced to use the wrong bathroom. Peter Thiel doesn't have to worry about being impregnated by a rapist and forced to carry the baby to term. Peter Thiel doesn't have to worry about shot by the police while his hands are up because the cops are afraid of his skin color. And evidently Peter Thiel is so disconnected from ordinary life that he's forgotten that he has to worry about being denied service because of his partner's gender. These issues are real issues to matter to real people, and for some of us (including me, a lesbian trans woman), they are our top priority. The only reason he's saying this is because either he's lucky enough to be unaffected or he thinks he's unaffected. If Thiel thinks these issues are "fake", then he doesn't belong in a position of power, and I am automatically skeptical of any candidate he endorses. It's just like last year, when Obergefell vs. Hodges happened, and immediately the anti-TPP crowd started claiming that Obergefell vs. Hodges was just a smokescreen meant to distract people from TPP being put on the fast track. I'm sorry, but my and more importantly my friends' ability to marry whoever we want is deeply important and very much real. All that little outburst by the anti-TPP crowd did is prove to me that the anti-TPP agenda is opposed to the LGBT rights movement. They've basically guaranteed that I'll never speak out against the TPP.