4 ms·

> I will continue to try to change [his grandmother & Thiel's] minds. I can get behind that. > of course, if Peter said some of the things Trump says himself,

> I will continue to try to change [his grandmother & Thiel's] minds. I can get behind that. > of course, if Peter said some of the things Trump says himself, he would no longer be part of Y Combinator sama should address the weird things Peter has said about women voting.

darawk 10y ago
He didn't say women shouldn't be able to vote. He said that giving women the right to vote has eroded some of his libertarian ideals, because women tend to oppose those ideals. Which is a true statement.
- linkregister 10y ago
  It seems to imply a hell of a lot. "I'm not saying that darawk's down/up-voting should be revoked, but he sometimes upvotes things that aren't the best for our country." The above (wrong) sentence would be an example of this type of implication.
  - darawk 10y ago
    It's not really fair to hang someone by what you infer from a truthful statement. You could say "Ending slavery caused enormous economic problems for the south" without supporting slavery. In reading the full context of what he said, it doesn't seem to me that he's implying we should take away women's suffrage. My reading of what he said is more akin to recognition of a marketing problem. That he thinks libertarians haven't presented themselves sufficiently well towards women, and there is room for improvement there.
    - linkregister 10y ago
      Thanks for clarifying; by your statement it does indeed appear that the quote is being unfairly taken out of context.
- opendomain 10y ago
  What logic is this? Pretty it up in some rhetoric, but not matter how you slice it, at the end of the day he _IS_ saying that he regrets the 17th amendment.
  - darawk 10y ago
    No he's not. He's saying the 17th amendment had bad consequences for his beliefs. You can frame that in at least three ways: 1. He regrets the 17th amendment. 2. He thinks libertarians haven't marketed themselves well towards women, and they should work on that. 3. A simple observation of fact and narrative of history, mentioned casually in a long essay otherwise unrelated to women's suffrage. My personal interpretation is #2. But we can't know unless he clarifies it, and until then it would be wise to reserve judgment.

darawk 10y ago

He didn't say women shouldn't be able to vote. He said that giving women the right to vote has eroded some of his libertarian ideals, because women tend to oppose those ideals. Which is a true statement.

linkregister 10y ago
It seems to imply a hell of a lot. "I'm not saying that darawk's down/up-voting should be revoked, but he sometimes upvotes things that aren't the best for our country." The above (wrong) sentence would be an example of this type of implication.
- darawk 10y ago
  It's not really fair to hang someone by what you infer from a truthful statement. You could say "Ending slavery caused enormous economic problems for the south" without supporting slavery. In reading the full context of what he said, it doesn't seem to me that he's implying we should take away women's suffrage. My reading of what he said is more akin to recognition of a marketing problem. That he thinks libertarians haven't presented themselves sufficiently well towards women, and there is room for improvement there.
  - linkregister 10y ago
    Thanks for clarifying; by your statement it does indeed appear that the quote is being unfairly taken out of context.
opendomain 10y ago
What logic is this? Pretty it up in some rhetoric, but not matter how you slice it, at the end of the day he _IS_ saying that he regrets the 17th amendment.
- darawk 10y ago
  No he's not. He's saying the 17th amendment had bad consequences for his beliefs. You can frame that in at least three ways: 1. He regrets the 17th amendment. 2. He thinks libertarians haven't marketed themselves well towards women, and they should work on that. 3. A simple observation of fact and narrative of history, mentioned casually in a long essay otherwise unrelated to women's suffrage. My personal interpretation is #2. But we can't know unless he clarifies it, and until then it would be wise to reserve judgment.