4 ms·

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 t

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.