4 ms·

> Really Thiel's frankly fascistic rhetoric is far more treasonous How so?

didibus 7y ago
Not OP, but I'm guessing in the same sense that communist activists used to (still are?) be considered treasonous. Like any active promotion and support against a free democracy and towards another means of organizing society, so fascism, dictatorship, feudal, communist, etc., could be seen as treasonous in a way.
- ailideex 7y ago
  I see, I was not aware that Thiel was "active promotion and support against a free democracy and towards another means of organizing society" - if that is the case then I guess it would make sense to say he is treasonous. Seems like that would be a relevant tidbit of information to include in the article.
  - didibus 7y ago
    Oh, I don't know if Thiel is or isn't. But the parent comment implied that he had Fascistic rhetoric. I don't really follow Thiel, so I can't confirm or deny if he's rhetoric is fascistic or not. If it were though, with his level of power and influence, it could be seen as a challenge to the US democracy. Edit: After doing some quick research, there definitely seem to be evidence of support and active involvement in anti-democratic circles. Now to what extent I can't say. It is also unclear if it is intentional, as in, he could be accidentally promoting and contributing to those circles. But I found sections describing his beliefs that women suffrage was a mistake (because they tend to vote against his agenda), that monarchies aren't so bad and startups are a form of them, that democracy prevents libertarianism and are thus incompatible etc. Now, those could all be misquoted or out of context ofcourse. Even then though, he seems pretty open about the fact that he is not in agreement with the current democratic system and wishes to change it. It all feels a bit my way or the highway. Like since he hasn't been able to have people democratically agree with him and pass the laws and rules which he believes in, he started to look for other alternative means in order to achieve putting those laws and rules in place, which are anti-democratic and tend towards forceful.
Nasrudith 7y ago
The whole point of democracy is to be ruled by the people. Calling for those who dissent to be cudgeled with serious crimes is essentially a threat Part of the nominal democracy to dictatorship transition involves restricting dissent through abuse of power - like aggressive libel laws to jail those who state inconvenient truths. That sort of "step toward usurpation" is far more worthy of the label even if it doesn't fit the deliberately narrow formal legal definition. Compared to exercising their right of who to work for and dealing with perfectly legal partners?

Not OP, but I'm guessing in the same sense that communist activists used to (still are?) be considered treasonous. Like any active promotion and support against a free democracy and towards another means of organizing society, so fascism, dictatorship, feudal, communist, etc., could be seen as treasonous in a way.

ailideex 7y ago
I see, I was not aware that Thiel was "active promotion and support against a free democracy and towards another means of organizing society" - if that is the case then I guess it would make sense to say he is treasonous. Seems like that would be a relevant tidbit of information to include in the article.
- didibus 7y ago
  Oh, I don't know if Thiel is or isn't. But the parent comment implied that he had Fascistic rhetoric. I don't really follow Thiel, so I can't confirm or deny if he's rhetoric is fascistic or not. If it were though, with his level of power and influence, it could be seen as a challenge to the US democracy. Edit: After doing some quick research, there definitely seem to be evidence of support and active involvement in anti-democratic circles. Now to what extent I can't say. It is also unclear if it is intentional, as in, he could be accidentally promoting and contributing to those circles. But I found sections describing his beliefs that women suffrage was a mistake (because they tend to vote against his agenda), that monarchies aren't so bad and startups are a form of them, that democracy prevents libertarianism and are thus incompatible etc. Now, those could all be misquoted or out of context ofcourse. Even then though, he seems pretty open about the fact that he is not in agreement with the current democratic system and wishes to change it. It all feels a bit my way or the highway. Like since he hasn't been able to have people democratically agree with him and pass the laws and rules which he believes in, he started to look for other alternative means in order to achieve putting those laws and rules in place, which are anti-democratic and tend towards forceful.

Nasrudith 7y ago

The whole point of democracy is to be ruled by the people. Calling for those who dissent to be cudgeled with serious crimes is essentially a threat Part of the nominal democracy to dictatorship transition involves restricting dissent through abuse of power - like aggressive libel laws to jail those who state inconvenient truths. That sort of "step toward usurpation" is far more worthy of the label even if it doesn't fit the deliberately narrow formal legal definition. Compared to exercising their right of who to work for and dealing with perfectly legal partners?