3 ms·
If I'm reading this right, you seem to be pointing to everything except the literal meaning of his words, whereas I'm taking what he wrote at face value, and ig
by pjscott 16y ago
If I'm reading this right, you seem to be pointing to everything except the literal meaning of his words, whereas I'm taking what he wrote at face value, and ignoring the political context. Would you say that's more or less accurate?
I may be naive to be so trusting about the lack of hidden intentions, but as far as I can tell, Peter Thiel is hard to categorize politically and deserves the benefit of the doubt.
- kenjackson 16y agoNo, I'm referring to the literal meaning of his words and the context of the words. I'm not sure how you can escape the context anymore than you can escape the literal meaning of the words. It's the National frickin' Review. That's like getting a newsletter from Emily's List and thinking an interview in there is just about the literal words of the interview. The publication has such an overt agenda that ignoring that agenda is missing a big part of the message. And couple that with the actual text of Thiel's writing makes it obvious. As I noted a couple of months ago this was going to be the centerpiece of the right for 2011 going into 2012. Most of this is partisan, although some is nationalistic. The reason David Brooks, for example, is pushing this new humanism (when did emotional humanism become conservative, right?) is because its clear that is the world flattens the US will likely be in trouble academically/intellectually. As a country we lack discipline, but we do have an abundance of "emotion". In any case Thiel might deserve the benefit of the doubt if he avoided the National Review, but he gave them an interview that would make Jim Demint smile.