4 ms·

Oh sure, he's not "against" women voting. He just says that their doing so is bad for democracy. The point is - Thiel is crank, and if needs to sugarcoat the

• ifyoubuildit 5y ago
  Maybe you're aware of more than just the linked tweet and that's why I'm not seeing what you're seeing. Some reasonable interpretations of that quote: 1) We would be more capitalist (whatever that means) if welfare beneficiaries and women were not able to vote. 2) Libertarian initiatives would succeed more often. Neither of those seem to me to obviously translate to "We'd all be better off if women's suffrage never happened". For one thing, the quote seems to be missing anything that says those groups shouldn't be voting. But again, I'm only looking at the words on the page.
  • vanusa 5y ago
    This is of course exactly what Thiel, rhetorical genius that he is, wants you do to: perform a sufficient number of mental backflips and other cognitive gymnastics as necessary to obfuscate the true import of what he's plainly saying. Neither of those seem to me to obviously translate to "We'd all be better off if women's suffrage never happened". That's because I'm starting with what he said. Whereas it seems you're starting with what you would have preferred he had said.
    • ifyoubuildit 5y ago
      So I guess that's where I'm limited here. Unlike you, I have no idea what Thiel wants me to do. I also have no preference as to what some billionaire that I'll never meet says. I just read the words on the page and didn't attempt to fill in any blanks.
      • Apocryphon 5y ago
        Thiel doesn't need you to actually do anything, he just wants to plant the seed of the idea that "women's suffrage is bad for western democracy" in your head, and let that germinate into something in support of whatever worldview he's working for.
        • vanusa 5y ago
          And if he can do so without you thinking that's what he's doing in -- so much the better. This is after all the very mark of a skilled rhetorician.
        • ifyoubuildit 5y ago
          Well if that's what he was trying to do, he failed. I didn't believe that women's suffrage is bad for western democracy, and no more so after reading that quote. I read that libertarianism has failed to speak to women voters and welfare participants ("two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians").
          • Apocryphon 5y ago
            Just because someone says something and you didn't buy it doesn't mean it might not have appealed to other people. That is not how public statements work.
            • ifyoubuildit 5y ago
              Except while I wouldn't call myself a libertarian, I would consider myself sympathetic to a lot of libertarian ideas, and so I'm probably the type of person who would be susceptible to such a skilled rhetorician. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that you and the other poster here already have some preconceptions about what a man like Thiel wants people to think, and aren't exactly looking for the most charitable reads. I certainly could be wrong, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find too many people that didn't already have strong opinions on the man interpreting his words the way you have.
  • KittenInABox 5y ago
    My understanding is: 1) Given Peter Thiel is for more capitalism and more libertarian initiatives; 2) Peter Thiel believes that women's enfranchisement prevented more capitalism and libterarian initiatives; 3) Peter Thiel believes at the very least that women's enfrachisement has a consequence of preventing more of what he stands for.
    • vanusa 5y ago
      Recall that in his famous quote, Thiel did not refer to "capitalism and more libertarian initiatives". He specifically chose (and perhaps coined) the curious phrase, "capitalist democracy". And you can be sure he chose that phrase for a reason. Against this backdrop -- it's interesting that you chose to drop the "d" part of the phrase as if Thiel never said it. Let's see how your paraphrase works using the "d" word in place of the "c" word: 1) Given Peter Thiel is for more democracy; 2) Peter Thiel believes that women's enfranchisement prevented more democracy; 3) Peter Thiel believes at the very least that women's enfrachisement has a consequence of preventing more of what he stands for, which is democracy. This isn't just a rhetorical exercise. It's very important to his message that he used the word "democracy" as the central noun in the phrase, and not "capitalism" or "capitalist ideals". That's because at his core, the man is and always has been -- expressly, unapologetically anti-democratic.
      • KittenInABox 5y ago
        Thanks for calling out the nuance of the interpretation of rhetoric here. I think you're right in that the focus was on decreased democracy, not decreased capitalism, being the consequence of women's enfranchisement. It made very little sense to me that allowing women to vote caused less democracy, even in Peter Thiel's worldview, so I assumed it had something to do with libertarian/capitalistic beliefs instead.
    • ifyoubuildit 5y ago
      I think that's a reasonable reading. I don't think 3 obviously implies what others in this thread seem to think. I can believe that my coworker getting a huge bonus/raise means that I am getting less as a result. It doesn't mean I think it shouldn't have happened, or that I'm going to attempt to sabotage them. I can acknowledge something that isn't beneficial for my cause without immediately desiring to end that thing.
• prionassembly 5y ago
  What he seems to be saying is that it was bad for democracy back then. Maybe it would be terrible if Napoleon had access to nuclear weapons in the early 1800s. Am I saying we should have let the Rape of Nanking go on indefinitely?