4 ms·

All of them are risk takers and public intellectuals. They are independently wealthy, none of them need the exposure or income from peddling certain ideas or ca

All of them are risk takers and public intellectuals. They are independently wealthy, none of them need the exposure or income from peddling certain ideas or catering to a certain audience. I can't even tell which you one you mean, let alone for what reason.

random314 6y ago
One of them is a crazy raging racist. You missed that. EDIT: I can't believe I have to justify what is public knowledge https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/03/500569299/major-trump-backers-positive-comments-about-apartheid-stir-anger https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/03/50... https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/campaign/461193-ann-coulter-peter-thiel-slated-to-host-fundraiser-for-kobachs-senate-bid%3famp https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4...
- fooker 6y ago
  Does that invalidate their opinions about other matters?
  - mwfunk 6y ago
    I dunno, if someone was a flat-earther or an anti-vaxer I would be really uninterested in their opinions on pretty much anything because they're obviously batshit crazy. I don't see how being a raging racist is any more rational or any less damning to one's credibility than being a flat-earther or an anti-vaxer.
    - halfcat 6y ago
      > if someone was a ___ or a ___ I would be really uninterested in their opinions on pretty much anything because they're obviously ___ Dismissing one’s ideas based on group membership is a terrible strategy for truth-seeking. It’s a root of all kinds of problems we see with team-based politics where both sides have turned their brain off and largely accept the entire slate of talking points their side serves up. It also borders on the definition of bigotry.
      - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
        They weren’t talking about group membership, but about misunderstanding some basic things about how the world works.
      - shkkmo 6y ago
        I had a flat-earthier as a roommate for about half a year. We had some detailed discussions about his beliefs, which was interesting since my time at the South Pole gives me personal experience that directly contradicts most of his beliefs. The guy clear had a very poor understanding of math (especially geometry) and physics (especially optics) but was a generally nice guy with a good head on his shoulders. I would trust very ñittle he had to say about things outside of his direct experience, since his BS detector was apparently broken, but I would tend to trust his knowledge of things he had dealt with directly. While I don't judge people for their ideological bent, I do judge them for uncritically accepting BS because it fits their ideological bent. This leads me to dismiss many of the knowledge and opinions of people who find themselves trapped in the ideological games played by our media.
        halfcat 6y ago
        Yes! This is so much more precise and productive, and stands in stark contrast to a blunt stereotyping heuristic. You're engaging in discussion, analysis, and identification of cognitive biases and memetic complex traps. Then applying all of that appropriately, understanding where you can and cannot trust a person's ideas, without categorically dismissing the balance of that person's ideas indefinitely.
      - dekhn 6y ago
        I'm going to say that flat-earthing is a sort of dividing line for me. If somebody insists on flat-earth with a straight face, I'm going to ask them some questions. It's unclear that any flat-earther would be able to come up with answers that are reasonable, and I think it's reasonable to impute that the person's ability to be reasonable about other things is probably impeded.
    - fooker 6y ago
      Now apply this logic to people who believe that there is an invisible man in the sky watching all your actions. That's a majority of the worlds' scientists, teachers, politicians, and just about every profession.
      - washicalendar 6y ago
        This is an absurd argument. At the very least, science can absolutely provide conclusive evidence that the world is not flat and that vaccines cannot cause autism. This isn’t a “belief.” This can be shown with clear conclusive evidence. Religious beliefs cannot be tested due to how they are structured (“just gotta have faith”). So even assuming you are arguing in good faith, an anti-vaxxer and/or a flat-earther are people who can be shown irrefutable evidence that goes against their beliefs and they will simply close their eyes, plug their ears, and scream and shout until you go away. The opinions of those people are ones I don’t care about or think worthwhile because they have already made up their minds and are working backwards to look for evidence that supports their beliefs, and invalidating all others.
        fooker 6y ago
        I did not mean religious beliefs in general, just particular 'man in the sky' beliefs, which are as absurd as flat earth. But somehow a bunch people who have such beliefs are smart and productive.
    - sukilot 6y ago
      Donald Knuth is a deeply faithful Christian and I'd bet my life he is far more intelligent and accomplished then you.
- MrBuddyCasino 6y ago
  Instead of assuming that "surely every sane person" must share your point of view, can you point to specific accusations and sources that validate them? You might just convince someone you have actually a point, if your arguments hold up.
- jamiequint 6y ago
  I assume you're talking about Thiel and maybe China, but still don't actually know. Have you ever actually listened to any of Thiel's talks and the reasons why he takes particular stances? If you did you'd realize that his stances on things like China are related to geopolitics and economics, not race.
lvs 6y ago
Public intellectuals? Perhaps the public within a small geographical area. Maybe even just a couple of zip codes.

random314 6y ago

One of them is a crazy raging racist. You missed that. EDIT: I can't believe I have to justify what is public knowledge https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/03/500569299/major-trump-backers-positive-comments-about-apartheid-stir-anger https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/03/50... https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/campaign/461193-ann-coulter-peter-thiel-slated-to-host-fundraiser-for-kobachs-senate-bid%3famp https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4...

fooker 6y ago
Does that invalidate their opinions about other matters?
- mwfunk 6y ago
  I dunno, if someone was a flat-earther or an anti-vaxer I would be really uninterested in their opinions on pretty much anything because they're obviously batshit crazy. I don't see how being a raging racist is any more rational or any less damning to one's credibility than being a flat-earther or an anti-vaxer.
  - halfcat 6y ago
    > if someone was a ___ or a ___ I would be really uninterested in their opinions on pretty much anything because they're obviously ___ Dismissing one’s ideas based on group membership is a terrible strategy for truth-seeking. It’s a root of all kinds of problems we see with team-based politics where both sides have turned their brain off and largely accept the entire slate of talking points their side serves up. It also borders on the definition of bigotry.
    - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
      They weren’t talking about group membership, but about misunderstanding some basic things about how the world works.
    - shkkmo 6y ago
      I had a flat-earthier as a roommate for about half a year. We had some detailed discussions about his beliefs, which was interesting since my time at the South Pole gives me personal experience that directly contradicts most of his beliefs. The guy clear had a very poor understanding of math (especially geometry) and physics (especially optics) but was a generally nice guy with a good head on his shoulders. I would trust very ñittle he had to say about things outside of his direct experience, since his BS detector was apparently broken, but I would tend to trust his knowledge of things he had dealt with directly. While I don't judge people for their ideological bent, I do judge them for uncritically accepting BS because it fits their ideological bent. This leads me to dismiss many of the knowledge and opinions of people who find themselves trapped in the ideological games played by our media.
      - halfcat 6y ago
        Yes! This is so much more precise and productive, and stands in stark contrast to a blunt stereotyping heuristic. You're engaging in discussion, analysis, and identification of cognitive biases and memetic complex traps. Then applying all of that appropriately, understanding where you can and cannot trust a person's ideas, without categorically dismissing the balance of that person's ideas indefinitely.
    - dekhn 6y ago
      I'm going to say that flat-earthing is a sort of dividing line for me. If somebody insists on flat-earth with a straight face, I'm going to ask them some questions. It's unclear that any flat-earther would be able to come up with answers that are reasonable, and I think it's reasonable to impute that the person's ability to be reasonable about other things is probably impeded.
  - fooker 6y ago
    Now apply this logic to people who believe that there is an invisible man in the sky watching all your actions. That's a majority of the worlds' scientists, teachers, politicians, and just about every profession.
    - washicalendar 6y ago
      This is an absurd argument. At the very least, science can absolutely provide conclusive evidence that the world is not flat and that vaccines cannot cause autism. This isn’t a “belief.” This can be shown with clear conclusive evidence. Religious beliefs cannot be tested due to how they are structured (“just gotta have faith”). So even assuming you are arguing in good faith, an anti-vaxxer and/or a flat-earther are people who can be shown irrefutable evidence that goes against their beliefs and they will simply close their eyes, plug their ears, and scream and shout until you go away. The opinions of those people are ones I don’t care about or think worthwhile because they have already made up their minds and are working backwards to look for evidence that supports their beliefs, and invalidating all others.
      - fooker 6y ago
        I did not mean religious beliefs in general, just particular 'man in the sky' beliefs, which are as absurd as flat earth. But somehow a bunch people who have such beliefs are smart and productive.
  - sukilot 6y ago
    Donald Knuth is a deeply faithful Christian and I'd bet my life he is far more intelligent and accomplished then you.
MrBuddyCasino 6y ago
Instead of assuming that "surely every sane person" must share your point of view, can you point to specific accusations and sources that validate them? You might just convince someone you have actually a point, if your arguments hold up.
jamiequint 6y ago
I assume you're talking about Thiel and maybe China, but still don't actually know. Have you ever actually listened to any of Thiel's talks and the reasons why he takes particular stances? If you did you'd realize that his stances on things like China are related to geopolitics and economics, not race.

lvs 6y ago

Public intellectuals? Perhaps the public within a small geographical area. Maybe even just a couple of zip codes.