4 ms·
The reason that this keeps getting repeated is that it's a not-unreasonable summary/digestion of Peter Thiel's position, though you're correct that it's not pre
by margalabargala 5y ago
The reason that this keeps getting repeated is that it's a not-unreasonable summary/digestion of Peter Thiel's position, though you're correct that it's not precisely what he's saying.
Reading that quote by him in context, Peter Thiel's nuanced stance is more along the lines of "The extension of voting rights to women has likely resulted in an America that I think is worse/less preferable to the one that would probably exist if women were not allowed to vote".
So no, he hasn't advocated for taking away the vote from women in as many words, he just makes it known that he wishes they had never been allowed to do so. One can reasonably see how these positions are similar enough that some people have editorialized slightly. Especially since, given these views, it seems also reasonable to suppose that were the question of women voting to be put forth once more, he would probably vote against.
- prionassembly 5y agoThis is a common malicious misrepresentation of conservative commentary in general: even a slightly counter-progressive reading of history (maybe things haven't just gotten better and better in every possible way) is often painted as wanting to turn back the clock in the most extreme and extremely plausible of ways. Search old HN to see discussion about Curtis Yarvin to see this.
- pnutjam 5y agoNo, it's common for conservatives to hide behind half-truths and misdirection.
- prionassembly 5y agoNow, be nice.
- margalabargala 5y agoI think this is a reasonable representation, though. The idea behind voting is to say "I think this way is the best way", right? So if Thiel is saying "that way was not the best way", then presumably if the issue came to a vote today, he would vote against. It's true that he's not advocating for turning back the clock, but I think it's fair to say he wants to turn back the clock, in that he has expressed his opinion that he would prefer to live in a world where it were so.
- prionassembly 5y agoIt's possible to hold the opinion that it'd be better if we had waited 10 or 20 years more. Large-scale societal changes -- even ones you think are well past due -- are filled with Chesterton fences.
- wbsss4412 5y agoIs it not reasonable to summarize Thiels comments as “as a result of women obtaining the vote, america has become worse off”? Taking the leap to presume that he thinks it would be better if women never got the right to vote, isn’t that unreasonable.
- zozbot234 5y agoIt's deeply unfair, because Thiel never pretended to comprehensively summarize the consequences of women's suffrage, and sum them up as an overall judgment of the sort "America has become better/worse off". His argument is strictly about the prospects for the formerly better-represented variety of libertarian/classical liberal politics. Even if you think "less capitalism" is per se undesirable, there can be countervailing benefits.