6 ms·

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 o

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.

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.