4 ms·

Graber vs Thiel discussion 2020: https://youtu.be/eF0cz9OmCGw https://youtu.be/eF0cz9OmCGw

hunterb123 5y ago
This is one of my favorite Peter Thiel talks, the uploader certainly didn't seem to think so haha.
quadrangle 5y ago
Thanks, that was interesting. They actually largely agreed in that exchange, not really "vs". That was possible because of not being people who just do or say the caricature of some particular political dogma. If there's any chance to progress our discourse as a society, we have to overcome the pattern where if I say "Graeber and Thiel were in agreement", people stop imagining that it means they both are effectively the caricature of whatever Thiel-critics make him out to be. I would love to have this sort of dialogue be the norm. I would love to have this sort of reasoned intellectual rapport with others, including those who I might have significant disagreements with. P.S. Oops, I looked at the YouTube comments. We're F'ed. People don't know how to engage with ideas and respectful discourse anymore.
- petermcneeley 5y ago
  The issue with this dialogue was that it was not long enough. I think there are very real disagreements between Thiel and Graeber. I think the two stand on opposite sides of the egalitarianism debate. Is this rift completely insurmountable? Perhaps a kind of horseshoe theory can bring them together. I am not even sure that bringing them together is entirely the goal. It would be nice if a diverse set of beliefs could be practiced in relative isolation to prove out the viability of these concepts. This is why the YouTube comments dont really matter. Not everyone needs to participate in these experiments.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - quadrangle 5y ago
    Yes, the exchange was too short for them to actually engage in real discussion. I would have wished they could discuss for 3-5 hours and to have some highlight reel of it.
specialist 5y ago
Very good. Thank you. I had previously avoided this video because the thumbnails (of some instances) show a grotesque depiction of Theil. That's unhelpful. Errata, this debate was in 2014. My preassumption was this would simply be a fintech billionaire disagreeing with an academic that financialization of the economy in the 70s is the root cause of our ongoing malaise. Yet another food fight. I'm glad I was wrong. Theil still tried to shift blame onto the OPEC oil crisis. Wrongly, of course; inequity continued to accelerate and productivity continued to lag, even after the USA became energy self sufficient. Scarcity Theil's really stuck on the notion of scarcity. In a world of ridiculous abundance (current supply chain snafus notwithstanding). A true pessimist. Theil's explanation for why people are poor and malnourished is because of scarcity. We produce enough food to feed 10b people. What's Theil's thesis for this disconnect? Does that thesis apply to other domains? Whatever Theil's notions about how the world does or should work, I'd like to hear some ideas concretely rooted in the real world. Not just more Friedman style rejection of empiricism. Democracy David Graeber is a democracy innovator and practitioner. Like all reformers and innovators, Graeber would be best served by "show, don't tell". Tell real life stories. Of citizen juries, cooperatives, worker directed social enterprises. And then relate how those examples tie back to his thesis. My observation and experience is that people can't grok participatory democracy. It simply has to be experienced. Once people see concrete results of constructive participation, it just clicks. Like most everyone, Theil thinks democracy is simply voting. And can only see the failures. Culture and society has carried around Socrates' fear of plebiscite for millennia -- tyranny of the majority and other monsters -- and so react strongly against any and all reforms. How do we pop people out of that intellectual dead end? How do we shift the focus from casting ballots to participating in salons? Graeber's solution is to practice participatory democracy whenever, however you can. Mostly in the margins. Make your own space for reform. He strongly rejects revolution. For both moral and practical reasons. A point I wish had been made in response to Theil's rejection of social movements. Libertarian TLDR for this discussion: right wing libertarian can't or won't consider a left wing libertarian's ideas. Much as I related to Theil's viewpoints, I'm disappointed that an apparently bright guy can't think of any other organizational structure (for achieving great things) than Silicon Valley style VC-funded startups. Neoreactionary In 2014, Theil rejects government and working within the system. To this viewer, Theil has utterly betrayed his previously stated principles. Whatever Theil has said in the past should not be cited as his current philosophy. Conclusion Previously, I've struggled to criticize Theil. Because I can't figure out what he's talking about. Like his recent blather about China, cryptocurrency, and national security. Theil is incoherent. Thanks again for this link. For me, it shows that Theil doesn't even believe the things he says. So why should anyone care to listen? My instinct to ignore Theil was proven correct.

This is one of my favorite Peter Thiel talks, the uploader certainly didn't seem to think so haha.

Thanks, that was interesting. They actually largely agreed in that exchange, not really "vs". That was possible because of not being people who just do or say the caricature of some particular political dogma. If there's any chance to progress our discourse as a society, we have to overcome the pattern where if I say "Graeber and Thiel were in agreement", people stop imagining that it means they both are effectively the caricature of whatever Thiel-critics make him out to be. I would love to have this sort of dialogue be the norm. I would love to have this sort of reasoned intellectual rapport with others, including those who I might have significant disagreements with. P.S. Oops, I looked at the YouTube comments. We're F'ed. People don't know how to engage with ideas and respectful discourse anymore.

petermcneeley 5y ago
The issue with this dialogue was that it was not long enough. I think there are very real disagreements between Thiel and Graeber. I think the two stand on opposite sides of the egalitarianism debate. Is this rift completely insurmountable? Perhaps a kind of horseshoe theory can bring them together. I am not even sure that bringing them together is entirely the goal. It would be nice if a diverse set of beliefs could be practiced in relative isolation to prove out the viability of these concepts. This is why the YouTube comments dont really matter. Not everyone needs to participate in these experiments.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- quadrangle 5y ago
  Yes, the exchange was too short for them to actually engage in real discussion. I would have wished they could discuss for 3-5 hours and to have some highlight reel of it.

specialist 5y ago

Very good. Thank you. I had previously avoided this video because the thumbnails (of some instances) show a grotesque depiction of Theil. That's unhelpful. Errata, this debate was in 2014. My preassumption was this would simply be a fintech billionaire disagreeing with an academic that financialization of the economy in the 70s is the root cause of our ongoing malaise. Yet another food fight. I'm glad I was wrong. Theil still tried to shift blame onto the OPEC oil crisis. Wrongly, of course; inequity continued to accelerate and productivity continued to lag, even after the USA became energy self sufficient. Scarcity Theil's really stuck on the notion of scarcity. In a world of ridiculous abundance (current supply chain snafus notwithstanding). A true pessimist. Theil's explanation for why people are poor and malnourished is because of scarcity. We produce enough food to feed 10b people. What's Theil's thesis for this disconnect? Does that thesis apply to other domains? Whatever Theil's notions about how the world does or should work, I'd like to hear some ideas concretely rooted in the real world. Not just more Friedman style rejection of empiricism. Democracy David Graeber is a democracy innovator and practitioner. Like all reformers and innovators, Graeber would be best served by "show, don't tell". Tell real life stories. Of citizen juries, cooperatives, worker directed social enterprises. And then relate how those examples tie back to his thesis. My observation and experience is that people can't grok participatory democracy. It simply has to be experienced. Once people see concrete results of constructive participation, it just clicks. Like most everyone, Theil thinks democracy is simply voting. And can only see the failures. Culture and society has carried around Socrates' fear of plebiscite for millennia -- tyranny of the majority and other monsters -- and so react strongly against any and all reforms. How do we pop people out of that intellectual dead end? How do we shift the focus from casting ballots to participating in salons? Graeber's solution is to practice participatory democracy whenever, however you can. Mostly in the margins. Make your own space for reform. He strongly rejects revolution. For both moral and practical reasons. A point I wish had been made in response to Theil's rejection of social movements. Libertarian TLDR for this discussion: right wing libertarian can't or won't consider a left wing libertarian's ideas. Much as I related to Theil's viewpoints, I'm disappointed that an apparently bright guy can't think of any other organizational structure (for achieving great things) than Silicon Valley style VC-funded startups. Neoreactionary In 2014, Theil rejects government and working within the system. To this viewer, Theil has utterly betrayed his previously stated principles. Whatever Theil has said in the past should not be cited as his current philosophy. Conclusion Previously, I've struggled to criticize Theil. Because I can't figure out what he's talking about. Like his recent blather about China, cryptocurrency, and national security. Theil is incoherent. Thanks again for this link. For me, it shows that Theil doesn't even believe the things he says. So why should anyone care to listen? My instinct to ignore Theil was proven correct.