4 ms·

Everything? You make it sound like he's a child rapist or something. Has he ever tried to violently force his worldview on anyone? No. Is he a criminal? No.

Everything? You make it sound like he's a child rapist or something. Has he ever tried to violently force his worldview on anyone? No. Is he a criminal? No. Is he trying to advance his own agenda, like anybody else? Yes. This is the same kind of demagoguery used against rock and roll music; they're afraid his evil ideas will corrupt our poor citizenry! It treats the reader as a mindless lump unable to think for himself. That might work on TV, but not on the internet.

kenjackson 15y ago
Everything? You make it sound like he's a child rapist or something. Has he ever tried to violently force his worldview on anyone? No. Is he a criminal? No. That's a pretty low bar. Is he trying to advance his own agenda, like anybody else? Yes. But again, that's not the bar. It's what your agenda is that is at issue. Otherwise you don't differentiate between anyone since everyone is just advancing their own agenda. It treats the reader as a mindless lump unable to think for himself. That doesn't make sense. It presents facts and an opinion. That's pretty much the standard used in most forms of effective communication on the internet (and TV for that matter).
- teodesian 15y ago
  1). "I haven't heard anything good" is not exactly a high bar either. 2). I don't care what people's agenda is if they do not advocate focribly making others conform to it. Thiel does not, ergo his views are not concerning. If you want to be a follower of his, you can be; if not, dont. If you think people expressing a view without violating someone else's rights is somehow wrong and must be fought, your position is not keeping with the spirit of free speech. 3). The article is advancing the traditional statist viewpoint that the people would be lost without wise overlords; otherwise they would not be advancing the argument that "OH his nonviolent views he isn't forcing on anyone are bad". Such ideas do not need to be fought by anyone, as the good ideas will win without coercion involved. If his ideas are bad, he will fail all by themseves. No need for a hatchet job, ever.
  - kenjackson 15y ago
    "I haven't heard anything good" is not exactly a high bar either. I actually said I'd heard only negative things. But close enough. That's a pretty high bar to me, especially if the feedback isn't a trivially small set. I don't care what people's agenda is if they do not advocate focribly making others conform to it. His goal is very likely to get people to conform to it. If you think people expressing a view without violating someone else's rights is somehow wrong and must be fought, your position is not keeping with the spirit of free speech. You clearly don't understand what free speech means. My vocal opposition to his views and agenda are very much in the spirit of free speech, in fact it lies at the foundation of free speech. as the good ideas will win without coercion involved. If his ideas are bad, he will fail all by themseves. No need for a hatchet job, ever. First, not a hatchet job as far as I can tell. Second poor political ideas can succeed, in the short-term (long enough to kill millions, if not billions at the extremes) if people who think otherwise remain quiet.

kenjackson 15y ago

Everything? You make it sound like he's a child rapist or something. Has he ever tried to violently force his worldview on anyone? No. Is he a criminal? No. That's a pretty low bar. Is he trying to advance his own agenda, like anybody else? Yes. But again, that's not the bar. It's what your agenda is that is at issue. Otherwise you don't differentiate between anyone since everyone is just advancing their own agenda. It treats the reader as a mindless lump unable to think for himself. That doesn't make sense. It presents facts and an opinion. That's pretty much the standard used in most forms of effective communication on the internet (and TV for that matter).

teodesian 15y ago
1). "I haven't heard anything good" is not exactly a high bar either. 2). I don't care what people's agenda is if they do not advocate focribly making others conform to it. Thiel does not, ergo his views are not concerning. If you want to be a follower of his, you can be; if not, dont. If you think people expressing a view without violating someone else's rights is somehow wrong and must be fought, your position is not keeping with the spirit of free speech. 3). The article is advancing the traditional statist viewpoint that the people would be lost without wise overlords; otherwise they would not be advancing the argument that "OH his nonviolent views he isn't forcing on anyone are bad". Such ideas do not need to be fought by anyone, as the good ideas will win without coercion involved. If his ideas are bad, he will fail all by themseves. No need for a hatchet job, ever.
- kenjackson 15y ago
  "I haven't heard anything good" is not exactly a high bar either. I actually said I'd heard only negative things. But close enough. That's a pretty high bar to me, especially if the feedback isn't a trivially small set. I don't care what people's agenda is if they do not advocate focribly making others conform to it. His goal is very likely to get people to conform to it. If you think people expressing a view without violating someone else's rights is somehow wrong and must be fought, your position is not keeping with the spirit of free speech. You clearly don't understand what free speech means. My vocal opposition to his views and agenda are very much in the spirit of free speech, in fact it lies at the foundation of free speech. as the good ideas will win without coercion involved. If his ideas are bad, he will fail all by themseves. No need for a hatchet job, ever. First, not a hatchet job as far as I can tell. Second poor political ideas can succeed, in the short-term (long enough to kill millions, if not billions at the extremes) if people who think otherwise remain quiet.