4 ms·

Yes, it's the same old "I have black friends, too".

imron 10y ago
Rubbish. He's saying voting doesn't necessarily result in good governance and policy, or the will of the people - regardless of the people doing it. He points out the financial crash in 2008 as a prime example of that. Would you agree or disagree with that notion?
- revelation 10y ago
  He's saying women voting doesn't necessarily result in "good governance and policy", as determined by Thiel. You can do the substitution.
  - lkbm 10y ago
    I certainly can do the substitution. But there are multiple options for the substitution: * Substitute from my own hyper-progressive stance. (Great for feeling good about myself and hating on him.) * Substitute from his stance. (Great for understanding my opponent.) * Substitute only a logical equivalence. I recommend the second, but as a neutral starting point to break out of the mindset of the first, I'd recommend trying the third. As in, put yourself in your formal symbolic logic class, replace "women voting" and "good governance and policy" with X and Y and evaluate it. Your statement, "X doesn't necessarily result in Y" (which admittedly is not his statement), logically means exactly "It's possible for X to happen and Y to not happen." So, Thiel believes, to use the logical evaluation of your rephrasing, that it's possible for women to vote and for there still to be bad policy. Women DID vote, so the only the determining the truth of the logical evaluation of your rephrasing is whether we have (or will have post January 20) bad policy. Right now, Trump's promising some bad policy.
  - imron 10y ago
    He's not, and he explicitly clarified that he was not and that was absurd to suggest he was. You can choose to believe what you want though.
    - revelation 10y ago
      It is exactly what that sentence is saying. No amount of post-wiggle words does anything to change that. I think you might simply not be aware what the point of contention is here. Here is what you can say: "people without libertarian principles make capitalist democracy impossible". Yet he connected that with gender somehow. (It's not even a true statement if you think theres some isomorphism between Trump and Thiel. White women polled 53% for him.)
      - imron 10y ago
        "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" Emphasis added, but his exact words. You are being absurd.
        bobwaycott 10y ago
        That statement does not at all counter reading that Thiel believes granting women suffrage was a bad thing, and that this, combined with the expansion of social welfare programs, is incompatible with his ideals. It does not actually clarify that he thinks granting women voting rights was good, or something other than bad. All he says is it would be absurd to take it away [now], and it wouldn't solve the problems he cares about.
        imron 10y ago
        > That statement does not at all counter reading His original statement was never that woman's suffrage was bad, it was only an (accurate) observation that women do not lean towards libertarianism. People saying that he says 'giving woman the vote was a bad idea' are literally inserting words of their own to imply that reading. If the statement he made to explicitly counter that reading and to say that such a reading was absurd does not counter that reading, then I'm not sure what does. I'm not libertarian, and I don't agree with Peter Thiels beliefs, but if you look at the whole point of his manifesto it's that governments interfere, and giving people the power to elect different ones won't make a difference, and therefore people need to build places that are free of government influence (Internet, Outer Space, and on/under the seas). I suspect that will work out for him as well as Bitcoin has worked out without a central authority, and which is discovering and repeating all the mistakes of the past, and that has ended up with a pseudo central authority anyway.

imron 10y ago

Rubbish. He's saying voting doesn't necessarily result in good governance and policy, or the will of the people - regardless of the people doing it. He points out the financial crash in 2008 as a prime example of that. Would you agree or disagree with that notion?

revelation 10y ago
He's saying women voting doesn't necessarily result in "good governance and policy", as determined by Thiel. You can do the substitution.
- lkbm 10y ago
  I certainly can do the substitution. But there are multiple options for the substitution: * Substitute from my own hyper-progressive stance. (Great for feeling good about myself and hating on him.) * Substitute from his stance. (Great for understanding my opponent.) * Substitute only a logical equivalence. I recommend the second, but as a neutral starting point to break out of the mindset of the first, I'd recommend trying the third. As in, put yourself in your formal symbolic logic class, replace "women voting" and "good governance and policy" with X and Y and evaluate it. Your statement, "X doesn't necessarily result in Y" (which admittedly is not his statement), logically means exactly "It's possible for X to happen and Y to not happen." So, Thiel believes, to use the logical evaluation of your rephrasing, that it's possible for women to vote and for there still to be bad policy. Women DID vote, so the only the determining the truth of the logical evaluation of your rephrasing is whether we have (or will have post January 20) bad policy. Right now, Trump's promising some bad policy.
- imron 10y ago
  He's not, and he explicitly clarified that he was not and that was absurd to suggest he was. You can choose to believe what you want though.
  - revelation 10y ago
    It is exactly what that sentence is saying. No amount of post-wiggle words does anything to change that. I think you might simply not be aware what the point of contention is here. Here is what you can say: "people without libertarian principles make capitalist democracy impossible". Yet he connected that with gender somehow. (It's not even a true statement if you think theres some isomorphism between Trump and Thiel. White women polled 53% for him.)
    - imron 10y ago
      "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" Emphasis added, but his exact words. You are being absurd.
      - bobwaycott 10y ago
        That statement does not at all counter reading that Thiel believes granting women suffrage was a bad thing, and that this, combined with the expansion of social welfare programs, is incompatible with his ideals. It does not actually clarify that he thinks granting women voting rights was good, or something other than bad. All he says is it would be absurd to take it away [now], and it wouldn't solve the problems he cares about.
        imron 10y ago
        > That statement does not at all counter reading His original statement was never that woman's suffrage was bad, it was only an (accurate) observation that women do not lean towards libertarianism. People saying that he says 'giving woman the vote was a bad idea' are literally inserting words of their own to imply that reading. If the statement he made to explicitly counter that reading and to say that such a reading was absurd does not counter that reading, then I'm not sure what does. I'm not libertarian, and I don't agree with Peter Thiels beliefs, but if you look at the whole point of his manifesto it's that governments interfere, and giving people the power to elect different ones won't make a difference, and therefore people need to build places that are free of government influence (Internet, Outer Space, and on/under the seas). I suspect that will work out for him as well as Bitcoin has worked out without a central authority, and which is discovering and repeating all the mistakes of the past, and that has ended up with a pseudo central authority anyway.