4 ms·

> No, to us destroying a person for their political views is disgusting, even if we disagree with them. And this is some seriously oppressing bullshit that has

by jowiar 10y ago

> No, to us destroying a person for their political views is disgusting, even if we disagree with them. And this is some seriously oppressing bullshit that has (wittingly or not) prolonged white/male supremacy. People creating a space that makes it very clear that non-white, non-males aren't welcome, then well-meaning "moderates" going along with it because, well, I'm not going to judge him for his politics. It's how the US even came to be, founded on a compromise that was fundamentally designed to promise that slavery would never be repealed. Here's the deal. Having a don't-ask, don't tell policy regarding your votes in a voting booth is fine. But the minute you write a big fucking check to a big fucking fascist (or anyone else), you forfeit any right to not suffer consequences for your actions. Sure, the government can't (and shouldn't) impose penalties. But I'm damn sure going to judge you, and judge those who continue to associate with you (because they are saying that maintaining your friendship is worth alienating others).

bcheung 10y ago
To take his support of the Republican party to mean that he is against non-white, non-males is dishonest and straw man. If you have some evidence then present it. Thiel is both Libertarian and gay. Clearly he doesn't support everything in Trump and the Republican party.
- jowiar 10y ago
  That wasn't the argument I was making. What I was saying is that a policy of "We will allow people to express their political views free of judgement and consequence" only really works when "political views" is taken to mean "things we're saying about people who aren't in the room".
  - bcheung 10y ago
    I'm not sure I follow. Any political view usually affects all people in any room. Are you referring to Trump's bigotry? Sure, I'll admit, he is definitely a character in that regard. But again there's realistically only 2 choices. Thiel is going to take whichever one is closest. It's not ideal but that's the choice Libertarians are often forced to make.
    - jowiar 10y ago
      Get a bunch of men in a room, and discuss abortion. Get a bunch of straight folks in a room and discuss AIDS research funding. Get a bunch of white folks in a room and discuss police treatment of African-Americans. Get a bunch of 5th-generation Americans in a room and discuss funding for ESL programs in schools.
      - splintercell 10y ago
        Welcome to Democracy
- braythwayt 10y ago
  He may not be explicitly against non-white, non-male, non-gay, non-christian people, but he may be perfectly willing to have them thrown under the bus as long as he gets what he wants. Some people find that deplorable. There is a similar dynamic in play with Trump's support from evangelicals. His personal choices are nearly 100% at odds with their social conservatism, but many evangelicals seem ok with this as long as he nominates a judge that will repeal Roe vs. Wade. Such evangelicals probably aren't really in favour of Trump, but are willing to throw many people under the bus to get what they want as well. So... I agree that Thiel may not explicitly support everything Trump advocates (who really could), but all the same, it is valid to criticize him for the things he is willing to tolerate to get what he wants.
  - bcheung 10y ago
    Sure, but that's a consequence of a 2 party system and choosing the lesser evil, isn't it? He's both Libertarian and gay, both are extremely socially liberal. Why do you say he is socially conservative? I'm not seeing that. A lot of Libertarian tend to vote Republican because they feel stronger about economic issues, high taxes, 2nd amendment, freedom of religion, etc, than they do about social issues but that is just because there are only 2 choices (my bedroom vs my wallet). A vote for either party is throwing everyone from the other party under the bus, isn't it? http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-31-control-options-get-others-to.html http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-31-control-o...
    - jowiar 10y ago
      > A lot of Libertarian tend to vote Republican because they feel stronger about economic issues, high taxes, 2nd amendment, freedom of religion, etc, than they do about social issues But that's the problem. Who exactly are affected by these "Social issues"? (Hint: It's not rich white guys).
      - bcheung 10y ago
        That's democracy in general and one of the problems with it. People will generally vote for whatever is in their best interest at the expense of someone else. The 2 party system exacerbates the problem and steals choice from people by not allowing them to vote on specific issues.

by jowiar 10y ago

bcheung 10y ago

To take his support of the Republican party to mean that he is against non-white, non-males is dishonest and straw man. If you have some evidence then present it. Thiel is both Libertarian and gay. Clearly he doesn't support everything in Trump and the Republican party.

jowiar 10y ago
That wasn't the argument I was making. What I was saying is that a policy of "We will allow people to express their political views free of judgement and consequence" only really works when "political views" is taken to mean "things we're saying about people who aren't in the room".
- bcheung 10y ago
  I'm not sure I follow. Any political view usually affects all people in any room. Are you referring to Trump's bigotry? Sure, I'll admit, he is definitely a character in that regard. But again there's realistically only 2 choices. Thiel is going to take whichever one is closest. It's not ideal but that's the choice Libertarians are often forced to make.
  - jowiar 10y ago
    Get a bunch of men in a room, and discuss abortion. Get a bunch of straight folks in a room and discuss AIDS research funding. Get a bunch of white folks in a room and discuss police treatment of African-Americans. Get a bunch of 5th-generation Americans in a room and discuss funding for ESL programs in schools.
    - splintercell 10y ago
      Welcome to Democracy
braythwayt 10y ago
He may not be explicitly against non-white, non-male, non-gay, non-christian people, but he may be perfectly willing to have them thrown under the bus as long as he gets what he wants. Some people find that deplorable. There is a similar dynamic in play with Trump's support from evangelicals. His personal choices are nearly 100% at odds with their social conservatism, but many evangelicals seem ok with this as long as he nominates a judge that will repeal Roe vs. Wade. Such evangelicals probably aren't really in favour of Trump, but are willing to throw many people under the bus to get what they want as well. So... I agree that Thiel may not explicitly support everything Trump advocates (who really could), but all the same, it is valid to criticize him for the things he is willing to tolerate to get what he wants.
- bcheung 10y ago
  Sure, but that's a consequence of a 2 party system and choosing the lesser evil, isn't it? He's both Libertarian and gay, both are extremely socially liberal. Why do you say he is socially conservative? I'm not seeing that. A lot of Libertarian tend to vote Republican because they feel stronger about economic issues, high taxes, 2nd amendment, freedom of religion, etc, than they do about social issues but that is just because there are only 2 choices (my bedroom vs my wallet). A vote for either party is throwing everyone from the other party under the bus, isn't it? http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-31-control-options-get-others-to.html http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-31-control-o...
  - jowiar 10y ago
    > A lot of Libertarian tend to vote Republican because they feel stronger about economic issues, high taxes, 2nd amendment, freedom of religion, etc, than they do about social issues But that's the problem. Who exactly are affected by these "Social issues"? (Hint: It's not rich white guys).
    - bcheung 10y ago
      That's democracy in general and one of the problems with it. People will generally vote for whatever is in their best interest at the expense of someone else. The 2 party system exacerbates the problem and steals choice from people by not allowing them to vote on specific issues.