2 ms·

what if Thiel decides he doesn't like you, or people like you, and swings his influence hammer at your government and creates a hostile political climate for yo

what if Thiel decides he doesn't like you, or people like you, and swings his influence hammer at your government and creates a hostile political climate for you, and your friends, and family? He has already demonstrated his willingness and ability to do this. Why do you trust him?

defen 10y ago
As an example of the disconnect between most commenters on here, and the rest of the country: Imagine that you own a pizzeria in a small town of 2,000 people. Imagine that you hold social beliefs that, 50 years ago, would have been considered not just banal, but so unremarkable that the alternative is not even seriously considered by anyone. 30 years ago, that alternative was not actually legal in any country in the world. Today, it's still (barely) a minority belief. Now imagine someone asks you to violate that social belief, and you say no. And as a result, a gigantic media firestorm erupts. The President of the USA makes fun of you. The CEO of the world's largest public corporation writes an op-ed decrying your beliefs. People trash your online reputation. Anonymous people threaten to burn down your restaurant. Eventually you're forced to close because there has been such a tremendous backlash. The system in power in the USA has already demonstrated its willingness and ability to do this. Why would people who disagree with these things trust it to have that kind of power? Why wouldn't they try to burn it all down or replace it?
- metaphorm 10y ago
  I don't understand your point. How far along the reductio ad absurdum should we go? You described the holdouts of the 1950s era of American culture. Suppose there was a holdout from the 1850s era of American culture. Should we give deference to their cultural preferences which include all of the following: ownership of human beings as property (only if they have dark skin, though), subjugation of women who are legally disenfranchised, and enthusiasm for genocidal military actions against indigenous people. so...where do you draw the line? by what means do we determine by what means, and under what circumstances, people might express their cultural preferences? I think there is a difference between a "media firestorm" (emergent phenomenon) and the directed effort of an eccentric billionaire.
  - defen 10y ago
    > Should we give deference to their cultural preferences which include all of the following: ownership of human beings as property (only if they have dark skin, though), subjugation of women who are legally disenfranchised, and enthusiasm for genocidal military actions against indigenous people. We do give deference to that, as long as they are our allies and not actually within our borders. More seriously though, there is no means by which we can determine how people might express their cultural preferences. I simply believe (unprovable) that the elite / bourgeois / urban class overreached (by creating a situation allowing those emergent phenomena to happen), and there was a reaction. If there were a critical mass of people who did believe in slavery, then I guess there would have to be a civil war or something to settle the issue. There is no way around the fact that public morality is enforced socially / by other people.

defen 10y ago

As an example of the disconnect between most commenters on here, and the rest of the country: Imagine that you own a pizzeria in a small town of 2,000 people. Imagine that you hold social beliefs that, 50 years ago, would have been considered not just banal, but so unremarkable that the alternative is not even seriously considered by anyone. 30 years ago, that alternative was not actually legal in any country in the world. Today, it's still (barely) a minority belief. Now imagine someone asks you to violate that social belief, and you say no. And as a result, a gigantic media firestorm erupts. The President of the USA makes fun of you. The CEO of the world's largest public corporation writes an op-ed decrying your beliefs. People trash your online reputation. Anonymous people threaten to burn down your restaurant. Eventually you're forced to close because there has been such a tremendous backlash. The system in power in the USA has already demonstrated its willingness and ability to do this. Why would people who disagree with these things trust it to have that kind of power? Why wouldn't they try to burn it all down or replace it?

metaphorm 10y ago
I don't understand your point. How far along the reductio ad absurdum should we go? You described the holdouts of the 1950s era of American culture. Suppose there was a holdout from the 1850s era of American culture. Should we give deference to their cultural preferences which include all of the following: ownership of human beings as property (only if they have dark skin, though), subjugation of women who are legally disenfranchised, and enthusiasm for genocidal military actions against indigenous people. so...where do you draw the line? by what means do we determine by what means, and under what circumstances, people might express their cultural preferences? I think there is a difference between a "media firestorm" (emergent phenomenon) and the directed effort of an eccentric billionaire.
- defen 10y ago
  > Should we give deference to their cultural preferences which include all of the following: ownership of human beings as property (only if they have dark skin, though), subjugation of women who are legally disenfranchised, and enthusiasm for genocidal military actions against indigenous people. We do give deference to that, as long as they are our allies and not actually within our borders. More seriously though, there is no means by which we can determine how people might express their cultural preferences. I simply believe (unprovable) that the elite / bourgeois / urban class overreached (by creating a situation allowing those emergent phenomena to happen), and there was a reaction. If there were a critical mass of people who did believe in slavery, then I guess there would have to be a civil war or something to settle the issue. There is no way around the fact that public morality is enforced socially / by other people.