6 ms·
Here's Peter's speech at the National Press Club: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob-LJqPQEJ4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob-LJqPQEJ4 Could you point out
by paulsutter 10y ago
Here's Peter's speech at the National Press Club:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob-LJqPQEJ4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob-LJqPQEJ4
Could you point out anywhere that Peter supports bigotry? Or even, a single crazy statement in Peter's speech? (I wouldn't defend Trump. I'm defending Peter, who I respect a lot).
The speech runs from 2:40 to 15:50, and can be watched in 7 minutes if you change speed to 2x.
(Thomas, I respect you a lot too. I've never seen or known Peter to do anything like you describe. I posted this video because it helped me understand his position on the election).
- betolink 10y ago"They(Mexicans) are rapists and murderers" Take a look[1] you may have been stranded on an Island the last 2 years and perhaps you did not hear what Trump have said. Now, not all Trump supporters are racists (maybe Thiel isn't? who knows!), but all of them are telling us implicitly that racism and bigotry are not deal breakers. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37zvOZ17eSE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37zvOZ17eSE
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- BurningFrog 10y agoNote that this Trump (mis)quote is in response to asking where Thiel says anything that supports bigotry.
- betolink 10y agoCorrected now, unless I didn't hear right when he refers to Mexico sending people over and then "they are rapists" perhaps his subject changed and he was referring to Aliens?
- BurningFrog 10y agoHe is, at least technically, making a more sophisticated argument. I'll rephrase it to make that reading clear: "Like all countries, Mexico has both great people and rapists/murderers. Unfortunately, the latter group is overrepresented among those illegally in this country." That's (technically) the point he's making, and it's (technically) not racist.
- late2part 10y agoCan you refute the statistical assertion Trump is making in that statement?
- gohrt 10y agoTrump said that illegal immigrants are "rapists and murderers and some good people", "not their best people". You can disagree strongly with Trump's claims about what motivates illegal immigration, but Trump's stated view is not racist: he discriminated between two groups within a single race, and did not distinguish between races.
- colemickens 10y agoThis is some amazing mental gymnastics here, wew. ""White people are racist, ignorant assholes, except for some of them."" ^^ I'm sure this comment will do well!
- adventured 10y agoVariations of that statement are commonly being written or voiced in the mainstream media post election. So apparently it does do well. Van Jones, on national TV, called it "whitelash" and openly described Trump's election as a racist response to Obama's Presidency. The post election has been one mainstream media tirade after another about the racist white voters.
- andrewchambers 10y agoThat is so wrong, a better quote would be: "The illegal French immigrants are ignorant assholes, except for some of them". The key differences are - Not all, the illegal immigrants. And Mexican, like French is a Nationality and not a race.
- atomi 10y agoThe alt-right gained most of it's momentum during Trump's campaign. You think that's a coincidence? And this, "it's a nationality not a race' is hardly a good reason to denigrate an entire people.
- andrewchambers 10y agoPeople keep saying he denigrated all mexicans... He didn't, he denigrated illegal immigrants. Unless you are implying all Mexicans are illegal immigrants? I don't even like trump but this kind of nonsense makes me defend him.
- skoopie 10y agoCan you tell me which specific Mexicans he was talking about?
- Chris2048 10y agoSpecifically the rapists.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- Chris2048 10y ago> "They(Mexicans) are rapists and murderers" Actually "they’re not sending their best" explicitly doesn't mean "Mexicans" (i.e all/any Mexicans). As such, that should be: > "They(some Mexicans) are rapists and murderers" http://www.breitbart.com/live/vice-presidential-debate-fact-check-livewire/fact-check-donald-trump-not-call-mexicans-rapists-criminals/ http://www.breitbart.com/live/vice-presidential-debate-fact-...
- betolink 10y agoHe supports bigotry I think on minute 0:00... by calling to vote for a racist bigot who thinks that climate change is a hoax.
- sintaxi 10y agoDo you then also suggest that those who called to vote for HRC support the destruction of government data, lying under oath, and support the unlawful invasion of Iraq?
- colemickens 10y agoHe supports a Presidency which built its campaign, to a large extent, on abject racism and outright sexism. A ticket whose VP supports electro-shocking gay teens to turn them straight. How, exactly, do you give such people $1.25 million and join their team without at least implicitly endorsing such views?
- colemickens 10y agoLove it. -4 and not a single reply. Pathetic.
- tptacek 10y agoHow is this a coherent argument? "Here is an individual moment from someone's life. Use it to prove they're bigoted." How about we cite other moments in his life? Like the (multiple!) Stanford peers he had who recounted his support for apartheid, or the book he wrote about the evils of diversity, or the blog post he wrote for Cato in 2009 lamenting that women had obtained the right to vote? How about getting up on stage and calling a person who repeatedly said that Muslims citizens of the United States should be forced to register themselves --- at their mosques or at lots of other places, we'll figure it out! --- the most honest candidate in the race? There's a point at which the challenges you choose to raise cross a line into gaslighting --- who are you going to believe, Thiel or your own lying eyes? --- and while you haven't crossed it, writing in a tone that suggests it's unreasonable to question Thiel's inclusiveness definitely brings you right up to it.
- davidp 10y ago> or the blog post he wrote for Cato in 2009 lamenting that women had obtained the right to vote? He said no such thing in that article[1]. I have no idea about the rest, or about Thiel in general, but I did read the article. Your statement is as bad and inaccurate as any one-liner soundbite on right wing media. The section in question (emphasis mine): As one fast-forwards to 2009, the prospects for a *libertarian politics* appear grim indeed. Exhibit A is a financial crisis caused by too much debt and leverage, facilitated by a government that insured against all sorts of moral hazards — and we know that the response to this crisis involves way more debt and leverage, and way more government. Those who have argued for free markets have been screaming into a hurricane. The events of recent months shatter any remaining hopes of *politically minded* libertarians. For those of us who are libertarian in 2009, our education culminates with the knowledge that the broader education of the body politic has become a fool’s errand. Indeed, even more pessimistically, the trend has been going the wrong way for a long time. To return to finance, the last economic depression in the United States that did not result in massive government intervention was the collapse of 1920–21. It was sharp but short, and entailed the sort of Schumpeterian “creative destruction” that could lead to a real boom. The decade that followed — the roaring 1920s — was so strong that historians have forgotten the depression that started it. The 1920s were the last decade in American history during which one could be genuinely optimistic about politics. Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron. He's talking about the poor receptivity he (and apparently other libertarians?) believe those groups have to libertarian ideals, specifically of getting them to vote for libertarian policies; he's not lamenting their existence per se. Indeed, there's a follow-up on this exact topic posted at the bottom of the article: 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. While I don’t think any class of people should be disenfranchised, I have little hope that voting will make things better. And finally: I believe that politics is way too intense. That’s why I’m a libertarian. Politics gets people angry, destroys relationships, and polarizes peoples’ vision: the world is us versus them; good people versus the other. He may be naive or disillusioned or depressed or whatever, but your misleading soundbite perfectly illustrated his point. [1] https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...
- ebcode 10y agoIt's called dog-whistle politics. It's subtle, so you have to listen hard, but here it is: "To the people who are used to influencing our choice of leaders, ..." and he goes on to describe "wealthy" and "successful" types of people. Basically he's talking "to" and "about" people like himself, namely, white men. The man is a bigot, and like all modern bigots, he hides (and shows) his bigotry in coded language like this. edit: just to clarify, "people who are used to influencing our choice of leaders", I am interpreting in the context of voting rights in the United States, which of course were originally denied to everyone but white men. So those are the ones who are "used to it."
- defgeneric 10y agoSeems clear to me that "people who are used to influencing our choice of leaders" means people who give 1M to campaigns, buy TV ads, etc.