10 ms·

> I think Peter Thiel is a monster Genuinely curious what you base this opinion on. If it's based solely upon his support of Donald Trump, this is a ridiculou

> I think Peter Thiel is a monster Genuinely curious what you base this opinion on. If it's based solely upon his support of Donald Trump, this is a ridiculous statement. If there is something else that would make a reasonable, politically neutral person agree that he is a "monster," I am not aware of it, so I would be interested to hear what it is.

kbenson 10y ago
> If it's based solely upon his support of Donald Trump, this is a ridiculous statement. You're projecting. At least let him explain his reasoning. Creating your own fictional version which you can denounce prior that that explanation doesn't really help the conversation.
- downandout 10y ago
  No, I am not projecting. The most common Thiel criticism I am aware of (especially in tech circles) is that he supported Donald Trump (along with nearly half of all voters). It is ridiculous to call half of all US voters "monsters". So if there is something else that makes him a person worthy of such a dramatic label, I am sure everyone would love to know what it is. If it's just more politically-motivated Valley-bubble drivel, then there is nothing to see here.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    While I'm going to choose in this instance not to allow you to pry open my braincase and crawl around to see which of my beliefs do and don't make sense to you, let me clarify that I do not in fact believe that "nearly half" (really: a far lower percentage) of US voters are monsters. Voting for Trump doesn't make someone a monster. Hope that helps.
  - literallycancer 10y ago
    >along with nearly half of all voters Last time I checked, 46.09% of 55.3% was a little under 25.5% of all voters.
    - downandout 10y ago
      That's the percentage of the population, which is why I was careful to say voters. In your own comment you acknowledge that 46.09% of voters voted for him. The opinions of those that choose not to vote in a country with free elections are completely irrelevant.
      - literallycancer 10y ago
        >The opinions of those that choose not to vote in a country with free elections are completely irrelevant. Please.. you have to register to vote, you have to stand in a line for hours before you can vote. How many people don't vote because it's too much of a hassle? Their opinions are irrelevant?
    - poikniok 10y ago
      So we are counting voters that don't vote now?
      - kbenson 10y ago
        Actually, I can think of individual cases where "voters" could mean one of each of the following depending on context: - People who voted in the last election - People who have voted previously in an election - People who are capable of voting (citizens of voting age not otherwise constrained from voting). It's probably usually obvious which one is meant in a conversation, but there are also likely cases where it can be somewhat ambiguous.
      - tptacek 10y ago
        Since elections in our current environment are turnout-based, in terms of gauging popular support, "eligible voter population" is probably the right metric. By that metric, Trump got just over a quarter of the vote --- and, by any metric, less than Clinton. Since some fraction of eligible non-voters wouldn't have voted no matter who the candidate was, the truth of the matter is obviously somewhere in between a quarter and a half. But there's no sense in which "half the vote" isn't misleading.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    You say: > No, I am not projecting. And then you go on to pull out a bunch of statistics and imply the statement was about half of all US voters, and calling them "monsters", instead of the actual statement, which was about a single person. Then you specifically acknowledge you still don't know what his justifications are: > If it's just more politically-motivated Valley-bubble drivel, then there is nothing to see here. Perhaps you need to look up what projecting means. Or, if you prefer, we can call what you're doing a Straw Man man argument. Not quite the same, but related, and it also applies.
    - downandout 10y ago
      I am not sure this is even response-worthy, but why not. All I said was that if his "monster" label was based solely upon Thiel's support of Donald Trump, then that is a ridiculous statement because he is then calling all supporters of Donald Trump monsters. That is hardly a straw man argument. Perhaps you should look up Euclid's Common Notions. Specifically this one: "Things which equal the same thing also equal one another."
      - pvg 10y ago
        Euclid proved any and all support for some political figure is equivalent? That seems implausible.
      - kbenson 10y ago
        Trump wasn't even in the conversation. The standing of people who voted for Trump wasn't in the conversation. You brought those in yourself. You not only assumed a political reasoning for the assertion, you then went on to introduce that to the discussion, and provide your opinion if that was the reasoning, but not in a constructive way ("it's ridiculous"). You continue to bring additional political arguments into this when I've been careful to note that it's not about politics, but about you assuming someone's reasoning using little or no evidence. That's not a useful way to have a discussion, and since my point was "doesn't really help the conversation" I think the state of this thread is ample evidence I was correct.
  - beatpanda 10y ago
    Why is it ridiculous to call half of U.S. voters (or roughly 20-something percent of the U.S. population) "monsters"? Because it's a lot of people? Who cares? They voted to literally send armed paramilitary troops into my neighborhood to kidnap and detain people who have committed no crime other than being present on this side of an imaginary line. What else do you call that? Does that become not monstrous just because a lot of people think it's a good idea?
    - xiangmin 10y ago
      Meh. I'm a legal immigrant, it took me and my family many years. I have many friends waiting for years to go through the Green Card process. I don't understand this recent glorification/romanticization of people who chose to just come here and skirt the law, imaginary line or not.
      - beatpanda 10y ago
        So you don't have a problem with ICE agents lying to get into people's homes, so they can take people away at gunpoint, breaking families apart and turning children (frequently U.S. citizens) into orphans, and keeping people in detention centers indefinitely, where they are frequently mistreated, all for committing no other crime than crossing the border? Because that's the issue here. This is what the actual process of mass deportation looks like. There are any number of more humane ways of dealing with this, among them what the Obama administration was doing for eight years, but Trump supporters voted for destroying people's lives en masse, at gunpoint, without consideration of any consequences. This is inhumane. Full stop. This is not about romanticizing any one or any thing, this about asking people to look reality in the face and defend the thing that they're supporting.
        AnimalMuppet 10y ago
        I do have a problem with you (or anyone) putting words in the parent poster's mouth. Please stop doing this.
        10y ago
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > It is ridiculous to call half of all US voters "monsters". Peter Think is not situated equally to all Trump voters. Even if we accept that it is a priori unreasonable that nearly half of the voting population on the recent election could be described as "monsters" (I don't, as popularity of an act does not contradict depravity of the act), it's quite possible to believe that voting for Trump reveals that one is either a monster or decieved by a monster, and believes that there are things about Think that make it particularly unlikely that he is a dupe, and thus that he is a monster but not all those voting for Trump are.
- darawk 10y ago
  > You're projecting. At least let him explain his reasoning. Creating your own fictional version which you can denounce prior that that explanation doesn't really help the conversation. a) That isn't what projecting means. b) He asked him about his reasoning and then criticized an explicitly hypothetical scenario. Note the 'if'.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    > That isn't what projecting means. "transfer or attribute one's own emotion or desire to (another person), especially unconsciously." That seems to apply here, to my eyes.
    - darawk 10y ago
      Hypothesizing about someone's state of mind is not projecting. Projecting is when you believe other people think/feel in the same way that you do. Since he was criticizing this belief, it is clear that it is not his own. Therefore, not projecting.
      - tptacek 10y ago
        Since I didn't in fact say that voting for Trump made one a monster, the expectation that I rebut that argument is indeed a form of projection.
        darawk 10y ago
        It's really not. Feel free to justify your position, though. As I already more than adequately pointed out, making a hypothesis about someone else's state of mind is a necessary but not sufficient condition for 'projection'. Projection is specifically taking your own mind-state and extrapolating it to someone else's. This is very, very clearly not what happened here
        kbenson 10y ago
        > Projection is specifically taking your own mind-state and extrapolating it to someone else's. I don't think it's clearly that, since there are sources that contradict the narrowness of that view. "to regard (something within the mind, as a feeling, thought, or attitude) as having some form of reality outside the mind"[1] Specifically, that method in which I was using it is when someone is applying their preconceptions to someone or something else. Which is fine, everyone does that in the normal course of dealing with other people. I was simply trying to point out that there was no solid evidence that tptacek was going by that reasoning, and putting it out there in that manner was non-constructive. All it did was open the door to a political flamewar about what percentage of people voted for Trump, whether everyone that voted for trump is also a monster, etc. 1: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/projecting http://www.dictionary.com/browse/projecting
untog 10y ago
> If there is something else that would make a reasonable, politically neutral person agree that he is a "monster," "Politically neutral" is a big qualifier to throw in there. You're basically asking why, ignoring his most controversial aspects, someone would find him controversial. I'm a little unsure how anyone would even approach your question. Thiel is a deeply political person - member of the Libertarian party, for one - how does a "politically neutral" analysis of him rate that? Ignore his politics entirely? To do so is to remove the obvious reason that some consider him to be a "monster". It's certainly possible to consider libertarianism to be monstrous, if your politics aligns as such. Even in the context of this article: he co-founded Palantir, who are a very controversial company, and will potentially assist the administration in mass deportations. Depending your political leanings, that may well make him monstrous. He co-wrote a book named "The Diversity Myth", statements in which had to apologise for in 2016. Again, those statements might make him monstrous to a person.
- downandout 10y ago
  I guess I could never justify calling someone a "monster" based solely upon their political leanings. I tend to be somehwere in the middle politically, and I cannot fathom calling anyone that I know on the extreme left or right a "monster" or similar simply because they disgree with me. So I guess the root of my question is that I just can't identify with people that would use such labels simply because others disagree with them. That's why I was hoping there was some other concrete reason for this opinion.
  - untog 10y ago
    I suppose my point of contention is the very idea of being "politically neutral". You may be somewhere in the middle politically, but I'm not convinced that makes you politically neutral. For example, a libertarian approach to healthcare may well result in more poor people dying than a state-driven approach. Does a politically neutral person just... have no opinion one way or the other about that? I find that difficult to believe. I hesitate to even bring it up, but many of the tyrants of the 20th Century were responsible for the death of millions, and for decidedly political reasons. Does a politically neutral person object to calling Stalin a monster on the basis that, aside from his politics, he was a good family man? (No, I'm not saying Peter Thiel is Stalin. Politics exists in a vast, vast spectrum - but I'm not convinced there is a place where that spectrum doesn't exist)
tptacek 10y ago
A very long, unproductive, and off-topic subthread starts here; virtually nothing underneath this comment engages with the concept of tech company responsibility/culpability for misuse, which is the kernel of my comment. This would be a good place to use the thread collapse [-] button, and also a good place for the monitors to snip off a political subthread.
- downandout 10y ago
  Agreed. Really, really, not where I was going with my very simple question that I thought (hoped) would be answered with something interesting by you that I did not know. In fact the only reason that I threw the Trump support issue into my original question was because I wanted to avoid nonsensical and irrelevant political discussion if that was the basis for your opinion, since we have all heard it before.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    Unfortunately, bringing up the subject you're trying to avoid to get it out of the way is hard to pull off usefully (that is without causing that which you were trying to avoid). I speak from painful experiences in my youth when I tried to do such. I don't recall nearly as many instances in the last decade, so either I do it less, I got better at wording things to not trigger people's preconceptions, or I've deluded myself somewhat to not see it when I do. Likely, it's some aspect of all three.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
mixedbit 10y ago
I wouldn't use the word 'monster', but I strongly dislike Thiels' opinion that founders should aim to build monopolies. Monopolies are bad for society, but Thiels' view it that monopoly is the only way to build a successful startup. "I sort of have a single idée fixe that I'm completely obsessed with on the business side which is that if you're starting a company, if you’re the founder, entrepreneur, starting a company you always want to aim for monopoly and you want to always avoid competition" https://youtu.be/5_0dVHMpJlo?t=26s https://youtu.be/5_0dVHMpJlo?t=26s
- hnbroseph 10y ago
  monopoly through anti-competitive behavior is bad, but natural monopolies by virtue of superiority (read: customer appeal) isn't bad by default.
- equalarrow 10y ago
  I think from Thiels' capitalist view, he's totally correct on this point. But, you could also say, from a virus' view, to reproduce and monopolize a body is also a correct point of view. However, what Thiel ignores is the world is not just capitalist domain, it has living organisms which those monopolies can make life miserable or worse kill. Just like the virus though, he isn't considering the whole body his views are infecting.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    > I think from Thiels' capitalist view, he's totally correct on this point. Isn't that the same as saying from Theils' capitalist view the solution is to prevent capitalism from functioning? How do you have capitalism without competition?
    - pizza 10y ago
      individuals and communities have different relationships to competition
sedachv 10y ago
Peter Thiel is a racist, misogynist oligarch. Some quotes: But since a multicultural rape charge may indicate nothing more than belated regret, a woman might ‘realize’ that she had been ‘raped’ the next day or even many days later. ---- The purpose of the rape crisis movement seems as much about vilifying men as about raising ‘awareness’. ---- 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.

kbenson 10y ago

> If it's based solely upon his support of Donald Trump, this is a ridiculous statement. You're projecting. At least let him explain his reasoning. Creating your own fictional version which you can denounce prior that that explanation doesn't really help the conversation.

downandout 10y ago
No, I am not projecting. The most common Thiel criticism I am aware of (especially in tech circles) is that he supported Donald Trump (along with nearly half of all voters). It is ridiculous to call half of all US voters "monsters". So if there is something else that makes him a person worthy of such a dramatic label, I am sure everyone would love to know what it is. If it's just more politically-motivated Valley-bubble drivel, then there is nothing to see here.
- tptacek 10y ago
  While I'm going to choose in this instance not to allow you to pry open my braincase and crawl around to see which of my beliefs do and don't make sense to you, let me clarify that I do not in fact believe that "nearly half" (really: a far lower percentage) of US voters are monsters. Voting for Trump doesn't make someone a monster. Hope that helps.
- literallycancer 10y ago
  >along with nearly half of all voters Last time I checked, 46.09% of 55.3% was a little under 25.5% of all voters.
  - downandout 10y ago
    That's the percentage of the population, which is why I was careful to say voters. In your own comment you acknowledge that 46.09% of voters voted for him. The opinions of those that choose not to vote in a country with free elections are completely irrelevant.
    - literallycancer 10y ago
      >The opinions of those that choose not to vote in a country with free elections are completely irrelevant. Please.. you have to register to vote, you have to stand in a line for hours before you can vote. How many people don't vote because it's too much of a hassle? Their opinions are irrelevant?
  - poikniok 10y ago
    So we are counting voters that don't vote now?
    - kbenson 10y ago
      Actually, I can think of individual cases where "voters" could mean one of each of the following depending on context: - People who voted in the last election - People who have voted previously in an election - People who are capable of voting (citizens of voting age not otherwise constrained from voting). It's probably usually obvious which one is meant in a conversation, but there are also likely cases where it can be somewhat ambiguous.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      Since elections in our current environment are turnout-based, in terms of gauging popular support, "eligible voter population" is probably the right metric. By that metric, Trump got just over a quarter of the vote --- and, by any metric, less than Clinton. Since some fraction of eligible non-voters wouldn't have voted no matter who the candidate was, the truth of the matter is obviously somewhere in between a quarter and a half. But there's no sense in which "half the vote" isn't misleading.
- kbenson 10y ago
  You say: > No, I am not projecting. And then you go on to pull out a bunch of statistics and imply the statement was about half of all US voters, and calling them "monsters", instead of the actual statement, which was about a single person. Then you specifically acknowledge you still don't know what his justifications are: > If it's just more politically-motivated Valley-bubble drivel, then there is nothing to see here. Perhaps you need to look up what projecting means. Or, if you prefer, we can call what you're doing a Straw Man man argument. Not quite the same, but related, and it also applies.
  - downandout 10y ago
    I am not sure this is even response-worthy, but why not. All I said was that if his "monster" label was based solely upon Thiel's support of Donald Trump, then that is a ridiculous statement because he is then calling all supporters of Donald Trump monsters. That is hardly a straw man argument. Perhaps you should look up Euclid's Common Notions. Specifically this one: "Things which equal the same thing also equal one another."
    - pvg 10y ago
      Euclid proved any and all support for some political figure is equivalent? That seems implausible.
    - kbenson 10y ago
      Trump wasn't even in the conversation. The standing of people who voted for Trump wasn't in the conversation. You brought those in yourself. You not only assumed a political reasoning for the assertion, you then went on to introduce that to the discussion, and provide your opinion if that was the reasoning, but not in a constructive way ("it's ridiculous"). You continue to bring additional political arguments into this when I've been careful to note that it's not about politics, but about you assuming someone's reasoning using little or no evidence. That's not a useful way to have a discussion, and since my point was "doesn't really help the conversation" I think the state of this thread is ample evidence I was correct.
- beatpanda 10y ago
  Why is it ridiculous to call half of U.S. voters (or roughly 20-something percent of the U.S. population) "monsters"? Because it's a lot of people? Who cares? They voted to literally send armed paramilitary troops into my neighborhood to kidnap and detain people who have committed no crime other than being present on this side of an imaginary line. What else do you call that? Does that become not monstrous just because a lot of people think it's a good idea?
  - xiangmin 10y ago
    Meh. I'm a legal immigrant, it took me and my family many years. I have many friends waiting for years to go through the Green Card process. I don't understand this recent glorification/romanticization of people who chose to just come here and skirt the law, imaginary line or not.
    - beatpanda 10y ago
      So you don't have a problem with ICE agents lying to get into people's homes, so they can take people away at gunpoint, breaking families apart and turning children (frequently U.S. citizens) into orphans, and keeping people in detention centers indefinitely, where they are frequently mistreated, all for committing no other crime than crossing the border? Because that's the issue here. This is what the actual process of mass deportation looks like. There are any number of more humane ways of dealing with this, among them what the Obama administration was doing for eight years, but Trump supporters voted for destroying people's lives en masse, at gunpoint, without consideration of any consequences. This is inhumane. Full stop. This is not about romanticizing any one or any thing, this about asking people to look reality in the face and defend the thing that they're supporting.
      - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
        I do have a problem with you (or anyone) putting words in the parent poster's mouth. Please stop doing this.
        10y ago
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > It is ridiculous to call half of all US voters "monsters". Peter Think is not situated equally to all Trump voters. Even if we accept that it is a priori unreasonable that nearly half of the voting population on the recent election could be described as "monsters" (I don't, as popularity of an act does not contradict depravity of the act), it's quite possible to believe that voting for Trump reveals that one is either a monster or decieved by a monster, and believes that there are things about Think that make it particularly unlikely that he is a dupe, and thus that he is a monster but not all those voting for Trump are.
darawk 10y ago
> You're projecting. At least let him explain his reasoning. Creating your own fictional version which you can denounce prior that that explanation doesn't really help the conversation. a) That isn't what projecting means. b) He asked him about his reasoning and then criticized an explicitly hypothetical scenario. Note the 'if'.
- kbenson 10y ago
  > That isn't what projecting means. "transfer or attribute one's own emotion or desire to (another person), especially unconsciously." That seems to apply here, to my eyes.
  - darawk 10y ago
    Hypothesizing about someone's state of mind is not projecting. Projecting is when you believe other people think/feel in the same way that you do. Since he was criticizing this belief, it is clear that it is not his own. Therefore, not projecting.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      Since I didn't in fact say that voting for Trump made one a monster, the expectation that I rebut that argument is indeed a form of projection.
      - darawk 10y ago
        It's really not. Feel free to justify your position, though. As I already more than adequately pointed out, making a hypothesis about someone else's state of mind is a necessary but not sufficient condition for 'projection'. Projection is specifically taking your own mind-state and extrapolating it to someone else's. This is very, very clearly not what happened here
        kbenson 10y ago
        > Projection is specifically taking your own mind-state and extrapolating it to someone else's. I don't think it's clearly that, since there are sources that contradict the narrowness of that view. "to regard (something within the mind, as a feeling, thought, or attitude) as having some form of reality outside the mind"[1] Specifically, that method in which I was using it is when someone is applying their preconceptions to someone or something else. Which is fine, everyone does that in the normal course of dealing with other people. I was simply trying to point out that there was no solid evidence that tptacek was going by that reasoning, and putting it out there in that manner was non-constructive. All it did was open the door to a political flamewar about what percentage of people voted for Trump, whether everyone that voted for trump is also a monster, etc. 1: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/projecting http://www.dictionary.com/browse/projecting

untog 10y ago

> If there is something else that would make a reasonable, politically neutral person agree that he is a "monster," "Politically neutral" is a big qualifier to throw in there. You're basically asking why, ignoring his most controversial aspects, someone would find him controversial. I'm a little unsure how anyone would even approach your question. Thiel is a deeply political person - member of the Libertarian party, for one - how does a "politically neutral" analysis of him rate that? Ignore his politics entirely? To do so is to remove the obvious reason that some consider him to be a "monster". It's certainly possible to consider libertarianism to be monstrous, if your politics aligns as such. Even in the context of this article: he co-founded Palantir, who are a very controversial company, and will potentially assist the administration in mass deportations. Depending your political leanings, that may well make him monstrous. He co-wrote a book named "The Diversity Myth", statements in which had to apologise for in 2016. Again, those statements might make him monstrous to a person.

downandout 10y ago
I guess I could never justify calling someone a "monster" based solely upon their political leanings. I tend to be somehwere in the middle politically, and I cannot fathom calling anyone that I know on the extreme left or right a "monster" or similar simply because they disgree with me. So I guess the root of my question is that I just can't identify with people that would use such labels simply because others disagree with them. That's why I was hoping there was some other concrete reason for this opinion.
- untog 10y ago
  I suppose my point of contention is the very idea of being "politically neutral". You may be somewhere in the middle politically, but I'm not convinced that makes you politically neutral. For example, a libertarian approach to healthcare may well result in more poor people dying than a state-driven approach. Does a politically neutral person just... have no opinion one way or the other about that? I find that difficult to believe. I hesitate to even bring it up, but many of the tyrants of the 20th Century were responsible for the death of millions, and for decidedly political reasons. Does a politically neutral person object to calling Stalin a monster on the basis that, aside from his politics, he was a good family man? (No, I'm not saying Peter Thiel is Stalin. Politics exists in a vast, vast spectrum - but I'm not convinced there is a place where that spectrum doesn't exist)

tptacek 10y ago

A very long, unproductive, and off-topic subthread starts here; virtually nothing underneath this comment engages with the concept of tech company responsibility/culpability for misuse, which is the kernel of my comment. This would be a good place to use the thread collapse [-] button, and also a good place for the monitors to snip off a political subthread.

downandout 10y ago
Agreed. Really, really, not where I was going with my very simple question that I thought (hoped) would be answered with something interesting by you that I did not know. In fact the only reason that I threw the Trump support issue into my original question was because I wanted to avoid nonsensical and irrelevant political discussion if that was the basis for your opinion, since we have all heard it before.
- kbenson 10y ago
  Unfortunately, bringing up the subject you're trying to avoid to get it out of the way is hard to pull off usefully (that is without causing that which you were trying to avoid). I speak from painful experiences in my youth when I tried to do such. I don't recall nearly as many instances in the last decade, so either I do it less, I got better at wording things to not trigger people's preconceptions, or I've deluded myself somewhat to not see it when I do. Likely, it's some aspect of all three.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

mixedbit 10y ago

I wouldn't use the word 'monster', but I strongly dislike Thiels' opinion that founders should aim to build monopolies. Monopolies are bad for society, but Thiels' view it that monopoly is the only way to build a successful startup. "I sort of have a single idée fixe that I'm completely obsessed with on the business side which is that if you're starting a company, if you’re the founder, entrepreneur, starting a company you always want to aim for monopoly and you want to always avoid competition" https://youtu.be/5_0dVHMpJlo?t=26s https://youtu.be/5_0dVHMpJlo?t=26s

hnbroseph 10y ago
monopoly through anti-competitive behavior is bad, but natural monopolies by virtue of superiority (read: customer appeal) isn't bad by default.
equalarrow 10y ago
I think from Thiels' capitalist view, he's totally correct on this point. But, you could also say, from a virus' view, to reproduce and monopolize a body is also a correct point of view. However, what Thiel ignores is the world is not just capitalist domain, it has living organisms which those monopolies can make life miserable or worse kill. Just like the virus though, he isn't considering the whole body his views are infecting.
- kbenson 10y ago
  > I think from Thiels' capitalist view, he's totally correct on this point. Isn't that the same as saying from Theils' capitalist view the solution is to prevent capitalism from functioning? How do you have capitalism without competition?
  - pizza 10y ago
    individuals and communities have different relationships to competition

sedachv 10y ago

Peter Thiel is a racist, misogynist oligarch. Some quotes: But since a multicultural rape charge may indicate nothing more than belated regret, a woman might ‘realize’ that she had been ‘raped’ the next day or even many days later. ---- The purpose of the rape crisis movement seems as much about vilifying men as about raising ‘awareness’. ---- 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.