3 ms·

> At one point Thiel is quoted with "The public transportation systems don’t work." Which is a bold and false statement, because public transportation can work

> At one point Thiel is quoted with "The public transportation systems don’t work." Which is a bold and false statement, because public transportation can work extremely well. I mean, it doesn’t work for him, since he doesn’t need it.. As someone without a car or even a license, who relies on public transport (albeit in Europe), I think this highlights the issues I have with economic inequality... Interests diverging until they become opposed. (Just to be clear, I agree that Peter Thiel’s claims with regards to public transport is false in general)

thu2111 6y ago
A lot of what Thiel writes is from a US centric viewpoint, which is fine, he's an American living in America. And in the biggest US cities public transport doesn't work all that well.
- cannabis_sam 6y ago
  He’s an extremely rich American that can navigate both government contracts to implement surveillance of people less fortunate than him (palantir) and the justice system to shut down press (gawker). He doesn’t need democracy, he doesn’t care for poorer people’s values, opinions or input, he prefers his version of “freedom” because he can buy whatever he needs. Fuck everyone else, amirite? (/s) Edit: when I was in the US I did use public transport, and it was fine, less convenient than uber, but fine. (This is in the context of cities and suburbs, even in europe people who live in rural areas are obviously less served by public transport). (And yes public transport in San Francisco did kinda suck. But so did old-school taxis)
  - tomhoward 6y ago
    From what I've heard him say, he seems sympathetic to the plight of "ordinary" Americans - i.e., middle/lower-class types who voted for Trump. They're all much less fortunate than him. I fully understand that people will find his endorsement of Trump repugnant, and look at past statements on gender and rumours of his past-stated positions on race, and find him deeply problematic. And some will be skeptical that he cares sufficiently for all those less fortunate. I have no need to argue the toss on those matters. But he does earnestly seem to care about the wellbeing of many less-fortunate Americans, and has spoken often of his wish to see a return to the more optimistic days of the 1960s, where shows like The Jetsons portrayed a vision of the future that ordinary people found inspiring. [1] But even if someone is a completely un-compassionate, self-interested arch-capitalist, it's still in their interests for most people in society to do be doing OK, as it means more people with money to buy products from the companies you invest in, and a more orderly society, which makes it easier to become/remain rich. As for public transport, he was living in San Francisco when he said that. [1] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/11/28/no-death-no-taxes https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/11/28/no-death-no-ta...

thu2111 6y ago

A lot of what Thiel writes is from a US centric viewpoint, which is fine, he's an American living in America. And in the biggest US cities public transport doesn't work all that well.

cannabis_sam 6y ago
He’s an extremely rich American that can navigate both government contracts to implement surveillance of people less fortunate than him (palantir) and the justice system to shut down press (gawker). He doesn’t need democracy, he doesn’t care for poorer people’s values, opinions or input, he prefers his version of “freedom” because he can buy whatever he needs. Fuck everyone else, amirite? (/s) Edit: when I was in the US I did use public transport, and it was fine, less convenient than uber, but fine. (This is in the context of cities and suburbs, even in europe people who live in rural areas are obviously less served by public transport). (And yes public transport in San Francisco did kinda suck. But so did old-school taxis)
- tomhoward 6y ago
  From what I've heard him say, he seems sympathetic to the plight of "ordinary" Americans - i.e., middle/lower-class types who voted for Trump. They're all much less fortunate than him. I fully understand that people will find his endorsement of Trump repugnant, and look at past statements on gender and rumours of his past-stated positions on race, and find him deeply problematic. And some will be skeptical that he cares sufficiently for all those less fortunate. I have no need to argue the toss on those matters. But he does earnestly seem to care about the wellbeing of many less-fortunate Americans, and has spoken often of his wish to see a return to the more optimistic days of the 1960s, where shows like The Jetsons portrayed a vision of the future that ordinary people found inspiring. [1] But even if someone is a completely un-compassionate, self-interested arch-capitalist, it's still in their interests for most people in society to do be doing OK, as it means more people with money to buy products from the companies you invest in, and a more orderly society, which makes it easier to become/remain rich. As for public transport, he was living in San Francisco when he said that. [1] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/11/28/no-death-no-taxes https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/11/28/no-death-no-ta...