6 ms·

Except Thiel is saying many of the repugnant things that made Trump popular. - Thiel is passionately against all forms of political correctness, just like Trum

• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• some-guy 10y ago
  Right, we aren't talking about Mitt Romney here. If this were the 2012 election I would be defending him, but this isn't some "standard" GOP candidate. Funny how the "binders full of women" seems so tame today.
  • twoodfin 10y ago
    Funny how the "binders full of women" seems so tame today. I'd be the first to criticize Romney's campaign, but that 'gaffe' was trumped up from the word go. It's a fine way in colloquial English to describe the experience of having collected large stacks of women's resumes with the intent to populate state government with qualified female candidates, which, in fact, Romney did. It wouldn't have been racist if he said "binders full of minority candidates". It would make just as much sense and be just as anodyne if he'd said in a similar context "binders full of recent graduates", "binders full of men", or "binders full of lost pets". It blew up because it was a fun way for the media and the opposing campaign to play with his decidedly "square" image by suggesting it had some sexual connotation, which was, frankly, pretty juvenile. Also the '80's called and they want their foreign policy back.
    • some-guy 10y ago
      I agree, it was political theater. Romney in many ways to me reminds me of Hillary as far as style is concerned and I would say Hillary's "basket of deplorables" comment is far worse politically.
• zip1234 10y ago
  Did Thiel say he likes Trump because of his "authoritarian leadership style"? I'm skeptical.
• Aqueous 10y ago
  Assuming all of this is accurate, Thiel's thinking and actions are so full of contradictions and irrationality it's hard to understand how he became a billionaire. Just two that stick out right away: "- Thiel is passionately against all forms of political correctness, just like Trump." - unless he determines that the political incorrectness in question happens to affect him in some adverse way. See: Gawker. And yes, I think outing someone without their express consent is a form of political incorrectness, in addition to a personal violation. I also don't think that financial bankruptcy is an appropriate punishment for doing so. "- Thiel wants to restrict immigration to highly educated people. Just like Trump." - But also believes higher education is not so worthwhile that it should be required or even considered important for all Americans. See: Thiel Fellows
  • nickparker 10y ago
    I'll play devils advocate here and unify both those points with Thiel's apparent views: Striking back at Gawker wasn't about political correctness, it was about the boundaries of public/private life. He doesn't care if people hate him / judge him for his sexuality, but he believes it's nobody else's business and the press should be kept from revealing similar private info in the future. This reconciles well both with the specific case he chose to attack them through (Hogan's sex tape) and with a vague 'yearning for the past.' Past presidents had extramarital affairs as sort of public secrets with the press corps, because exactly this sort of thing was considered immaterial. The second one is even easier to reconcile. Thiel believes there's a significant variance in the fundamental capabilities of different humans. The Thiel Fellowships are for exceptionally capable people, but he could still think the 'middle of the pack' needs higher education to maximize their contribution to society. He wants to make startup kings, not pull everyone out of school to start co-ops.
    • douche 10y ago
      This public/private dichotomy reminds me sharply of a novel I read at one of those late teen-age formative periods, For Us, the Living[1], by Heinlein. In that story, it was a norm that you could declare "private sphere", and journalists et al would have to ignore the ensuing events until going "public" again. In that world, it had basically put the papparatzi out of work. There are some other gems in there, like a future law where if a country was to go to war, it was put to a popular vote, and if the measure passed, those who voted for war were moved to the head of the draft list. I'm not sure whether everyone should be banned or required to read Heinlein in high school... [1] http://amzn.to/2eemScq http://amzn.to/2eemScq
• nanistheonlyist 10y ago
  Minor quibble: Yarvin is not alt-right he is neo-reactionary. The main difference seems to be that neo reaction endorses monarchy as a system of gov.
  • int_19h 10y ago
    NRx is generally seen as a subset of alt-right.
• Jenn_Kendrick 10y ago
  The human biodiversity crowd aren't white supremacists. They claim that different races have different average IQ scores and that these scores are meaningfully correlated with intelligence. These first two claims are extremely well accepted by the relavent fields. They further claim that these differences are largely genetic which is much more controversial but strongly suggested by twin studies - nonetheless this will be settled by cognitive genomics soon. They do not think white gentiles are the most intelligent race. Rather what they claim is Ashkenazi jews are the most intelligent ethnic group with an average IQ of 115, followed by Hans Chinese,high-cast Indians and descendants of the African Igbo tribe at 107, followed by white gentiles at 100, hispanic whites at around 90 and African Americans at 85. Their claims are descriptive not normative, are not flattering to white people, show many ethnic groups (including some African tribes) have much higher average IQs than white gentiles, and the fact that Ashkenazi Jews are found to be the most intelligent doesn't seem particularly white supremacist.
• postcarnival 10y ago
  > Trump shares this antidemocratic sentiment. what tangible evidence do you have that he is anti-democratic?
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  • colemickens 10y ago
    He's repeatedly threatened to throw journalists in jail that wrote things he didn't like. He threatened, on stage, in a Presidential debate, to unilaterally throw his political opponent HRC in jail. He is already contesting the results of the Democratic election weeks before it has even happened. And that's just what he's said. The fascist overtones are present in a variety of other ways. He makes minority groups scapegoats in order to appeal to ignorant masses.
    • zeveb 10y ago
      > He threatened, on stage, in a Presidential debate, to unilaterally throw his political opponent HRC in jail. To object to that is to beg the question of whether she belongs in jail or not. I won't take a position on that, but it should be obvious that being a political candidate doesn't grant one immunity from prosecution for improperly divulging classified information (or for sexual assault, for that matter; I can't remember a previous where folks could legitimately debate whether both candidates should be in jail).
      • colemickens 10y ago
        No, it's not. First of all, just like Benghazi, she's already been investigated by her political opponents and they've come up empty-handed. Second of all, Trump didn't call for her to be prosecuted; he claimed he would single-handedly lock her up of his own authority. To object to literal fascism is to acknowledge that we live in a Constitutional Democracy and have an actual legal and judicial system which is not to be subverted by a unilateral Executive branch actor who has a short temper and a grudge. You know, basic separation of powers principals that are fundamental pillars of our Democracy. But then again, this is the party that has illegally obstructed the nomination for the Scalia's replacement for the last 9 months, and will continue to do so for the next 3 _AND_ has already proclaimed that they will obstruct HRC's nominations as well... So it's nothing new to disregard the Constitution for the Republicans at this point, I guess.
• falsestprophet 10y ago
  "Except Thiel is saying many of the repugnant things that made Trump popular. - Thiel wants to restrict immigration to highly educated people. Just like Trump." Why is this repugnant? One would expect a country to institute immigration policy that benefited that country. If it is the case that some immigration restrictions are beneficial, isn't that a fair and reasonable policy? Is the only acceptable immigration system random selection? Or are no restrictions acceptable?
  • josho 10y ago
    I believe nearly every country has selective immigration programs, this is nothing new nor controversial.
  • zanny 10y ago
    > institute immigration policy that benefited that country This is implying that less educated immigrants are not beneficial? Almost any migration only happens because there are resources to be acquired on the other side. It is exactly like the drug war - you could ignore the causes of demand and try to somehow crush supply which has objectively failed (because supplies will arise to meet demands) or you implement policy to get the demand you want. And the immigrant demand takes many forms. Some times, welfare programs are too lax and give immigrants easy ways to avoid working. And other times, there is work to be done nobody is doing (often under minimum wage) that immigrants are willing to do because even below regulated standards of income they make way more here than they would back home. Both reflect on failings of policy that crated the demand, and those failings could be addressed in many ways and all political ideologies tout their own ideas as the solution, which is the point of debate. Most can agree the status quo is unsustainable globally, when states are trying to consistently stop the supply of immigrants rather than resolve what is causing the demand.
    • deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    • douche 10y ago
      The grass is always going to be greener somewhere else. Trying to attack that demand is, in my opinion, a fool's errand. If there is work to be done that isn't viable at rates allowed by regulation, then either it isn't that valuable, or its price is being suppressed. I think that we are largely moving to a world where the vast majority of human labor is unnecessary. Increasingly, hiring one smart person is more productive than hiring 10 or even 100 below average intelligence people, because what is needed increasingly is brainpower, not manpower.
• moultano 10y ago
  >>- Thiel believes that the 19th amendment destroyed democracy, because women vote in favor for anti-libertarian welfare measures. When faced with the choice between saving democracy and capitalism, Thiel chooses capitalism. Trump shares this antidemocratic sentiment. This needs a citation, because whenever I've seen people say this, they cite this this essay https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio... And frankly, if you think he opposes women's suffrage, you didn't read it. He clarifies further in an addition: But the most intense response has been aimed not at cyberspace, seasteading, or libertarian politics, but at a commonplace statistical observation about voting patterns that is often called the gender gap. It would be absurd to suggest that women’s votes will be taken away or that this would solve the political problems that vex us. >>-Thiel is the (primary?) backer of Curtis Yarvin, the alt-right (read: white supremacist) thoughtleader about "human biodiversity" (read: why some races are biologically inferior). Moldbug is explicitly not a white supremicist. You can read his explanation here: https://medium.com/@curtis.yarvin/why-you-should-come-to-lambdaconf-anyway-35ff8cd4fb9d#.m409fpfnm https://medium.com/@curtis.yarvin/why-you-should-come-to-lam... He disagrees with you about factual matters of human population genetics, but not about the moral issue about how people with different genetics should be treated.
  • gizmo 10y ago
    Moldbug believes that white people are the intellectual superiors of black people. That's supremacy. It's on his blog and in the medium post you linked. He isn't fooling anybody with his explanation of how that belief isn't racist or supremacist.
    • moultano 10y ago
      He also believes that Asians and Jews are on average the intellectual superiors of "white" people, so it's not clear to me how that's "white" supremacy. He's very clear that he separates the scientific question from the moral one. The belief that intelligence is largely genetic is fairly mainstream and supported by a large body of evidence. If he is committed to treating all groups of people with equal respect, that satisfies me. >>He isn't fooling anybody with ... What prevents you from taking him at his word about what he believes? Why would you distrust his own explanation of his own opinions? I don't think we're doing civilization any favors by speculating about people's "true" beliefs in order to ostracize them. Moldbug has said many absurd antidemocratic things, but you don't need to misrepresent them to convey that. If you want to debate someone seriously, do it like this: http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/10/20/the-anti-reactionary-faq/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/10/20/the-anti-reactionary-fa...
• brhsiao 10y ago
  Of your points, these * Thiel is passionately against all forms of political correctness, just like Trump. * Thiel: "A startup is basically structured as a monarchy. We don’t call it that, of course." * Thiel wants to restrict immigration to highly educated people. Just like Trump. sound too easy to take out of context. Forgoing that, they may be mistaken or misguided; I don't know; but are they really repugnant?