7 ms·

>Diversity at all costs: except diversity of opinion. Amen! Peter Thiel used to talk a lot on this subject. We’ve built a country upon the illusion of freedom.

>Diversity at all costs: except diversity of opinion. Amen! Peter Thiel used to talk a lot on this subject. We’ve built a country upon the illusion of freedom. We are getting towards the War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength stage in society. The scariest part is that the nation who will take the reigns next has no desire for free speech or diversity of opinion. Just as Rome crumbled from within we are doing the exact same. I implore you all: when you vote this fall, vote them out. Put some fresh faces in offices. (1)Regardless of party. Send a message that the status quo is unacceptable. 1. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Z99LXZai078 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Z99LXZai078

donw 6y ago
Hear, hear! Not only that: stand in the way of cancel culture. Commit to being an anger dampener. Don't share outrage porn on social media, and flag it when you see it -- from either side. Do like Monty Python. Whenever somebody you know starts chanting "Burn the witch!", don't outright disagree, and don't try to argue with facts and figures. Instead, ask them how they know she's a witch. Add nuance. Ask them to imagine how they would want to be treated if they were accused of witchcraft. And so on. Reach out, in-person, to others, and encourage them to do the same. Talk to people, in-person, with strong political views, and present counter-arguments to help them moderate. Yes, this carries reputational risk. Not doing so carries existential risk.
- chiefalchemist 6y ago
  Anecdotally, asking questions has become as "offensive" as making statements. People are so wrapped up in their echo chambers that _anything_ not in line with those "norms" is considered unacceptable. _Everything_ is binary. There's little grey area. Do deviate from the poles is seen as a complete switch to the other side. Free speech? Free thought isn't PC any more.
  - donw 6y ago
    > Anecdotally, asking questions has become as "offensive" as making statements. I think it always has been. :) You are offering the other person a chance to convince you that they are right. Maybe they even have a good argument! And you'd never hear it if you don't open yourself up to that possibility. Just as importantly: you can't expect somebody else to be open to changing their mind, if you aren't open to changing yours. I don't always succeed in this, and sometimes end up chasing rabbits -- did so elsewhere here, in fact. Other than getting in a bit of writing practice, it was wholly unproductive. > People are so wrapped up in their echo chambers that _anything_ not in line with those "norms" is considered unacceptable. True, but like Clausewitz said, war is politics continued by alternate means. It's worth offending people and taking risks to avoid those alternate means.
    - chiefalchemist 6y ago
      > It's worth offending people I didn't see the questions are offensive patrern by keeping my mouth shut :)
tarsinge 6y ago
Not everyone is a free speech absolutist who sees it as the most fundamental value. There are plenty of things we as a society decided we should ban to protect people. Can you have the opinion that it's ok to kill people? Would society be better with that kind of diversity of opinions? At one point society has chosen that people are equal no matter their physical attributes, and that society would be better with it. Free speech can come second to that, I don't see the problem.
- tanseydavid 6y ago
  >> Can you have the opinion that it's ok to kill people? Would society be better with that kind of diversity of opinions? This seems to be a strawman argument but even if this is unfair, I still have to wonder: "how do you regulate opinion?" Opinion is not automatically speech, but it seems that even under the current 1st amendment notions if one expresses this opinion that it is "ok to kill people" then they are running afoul of the 'harm to others' condition. I have never been to find a true absolutist on the matter of free speech -- I do not think they exist.
thinkingemote 6y ago
> Send a message that the status quo is unacceptable. Wasn't that the main reason people voted last time? The status quo = the swamp.
- adaisadais 6y ago
  The status quo is lifelong politicians within the house and senate. The president is merely a figure of the establishment.
cafard 6y ago
Gawker appreciates Peter Thiel's strong stand for freedom of expression.

donw 6y ago

Hear, hear! Not only that: stand in the way of cancel culture. Commit to being an anger dampener. Don't share outrage porn on social media, and flag it when you see it -- from either side. Do like Monty Python. Whenever somebody you know starts chanting "Burn the witch!", don't outright disagree, and don't try to argue with facts and figures. Instead, ask them how they know she's a witch. Add nuance. Ask them to imagine how they would want to be treated if they were accused of witchcraft. And so on. Reach out, in-person, to others, and encourage them to do the same. Talk to people, in-person, with strong political views, and present counter-arguments to help them moderate. Yes, this carries reputational risk. Not doing so carries existential risk.

chiefalchemist 6y ago
Anecdotally, asking questions has become as "offensive" as making statements. People are so wrapped up in their echo chambers that _anything_ not in line with those "norms" is considered unacceptable. _Everything_ is binary. There's little grey area. Do deviate from the poles is seen as a complete switch to the other side. Free speech? Free thought isn't PC any more.
- donw 6y ago
  > Anecdotally, asking questions has become as "offensive" as making statements. I think it always has been. :) You are offering the other person a chance to convince you that they are right. Maybe they even have a good argument! And you'd never hear it if you don't open yourself up to that possibility. Just as importantly: you can't expect somebody else to be open to changing their mind, if you aren't open to changing yours. I don't always succeed in this, and sometimes end up chasing rabbits -- did so elsewhere here, in fact. Other than getting in a bit of writing practice, it was wholly unproductive. > People are so wrapped up in their echo chambers that _anything_ not in line with those "norms" is considered unacceptable. True, but like Clausewitz said, war is politics continued by alternate means. It's worth offending people and taking risks to avoid those alternate means.
  - chiefalchemist 6y ago
    > It's worth offending people I didn't see the questions are offensive patrern by keeping my mouth shut :)

tarsinge 6y ago

Not everyone is a free speech absolutist who sees it as the most fundamental value. There are plenty of things we as a society decided we should ban to protect people. Can you have the opinion that it's ok to kill people? Would society be better with that kind of diversity of opinions? At one point society has chosen that people are equal no matter their physical attributes, and that society would be better with it. Free speech can come second to that, I don't see the problem.

tanseydavid 6y ago
>> Can you have the opinion that it's ok to kill people? Would society be better with that kind of diversity of opinions? This seems to be a strawman argument but even if this is unfair, I still have to wonder: "how do you regulate opinion?" Opinion is not automatically speech, but it seems that even under the current 1st amendment notions if one expresses this opinion that it is "ok to kill people" then they are running afoul of the 'harm to others' condition. I have never been to find a true absolutist on the matter of free speech -- I do not think they exist.

thinkingemote 6y ago

> Send a message that the status quo is unacceptable. Wasn't that the main reason people voted last time? The status quo = the swamp.

adaisadais 6y ago
The status quo is lifelong politicians within the house and senate. The president is merely a figure of the establishment.

cafard 6y ago

Gawker appreciates Peter Thiel's strong stand for freedom of expression.