5 ms·

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 gymnast

by 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.
        Apocryphon 5y ago
        Come now, there is no need to talk about ideology. It's all about simple parsing of the sentence. In his statement Thiel names two voter constituencies that have "rendered the notion of 'capitalist democracy' into an oxymoron." Now, you can argue what the latter actually entails but given that he is pro-capitalist democracy- as a libertarian- his very words indicates he doesn't believe that it is a positive thing. Therefore, the enlargement of the franchise, or at least of those two constituencies, have been detrimental for "capitalist democracy"- insofar it has "rendered" it "into an oxymoron". This is a very straightforward reading of the words as spoken. That is literally what Thiel "wants people to think". If you refuse to accept that A is A, there's no end of convincing to move your subjective opinion.
        ifyoubuildit 5y ago
        > Therefore, the enlargement of the franchise, or at least of those two constituencies, have been detrimental for "capitalist democracy"- insofar it has "rendered" it "into an oxymoron" This is where my reading and yours differ. You seem to see capitalist democracy being an oxymoron as a value judgment. I see it as saying that these constituencies have historically voted for more socialist style policies. So in this case more democracy equals less capitalism, therefore capitalist democracy is an oxymoron. Now you may see this as "cognitive gymnastics", but that's kind of how I see your reading, so I think that's just our biases at play. Not sure if you saw me say this elsewhere in the thread, but I'm curious what you 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

by vanusa 5y ago

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.
      - Apocryphon 5y ago
        Come now, there is no need to talk about ideology. It's all about simple parsing of the sentence. In his statement Thiel names two voter constituencies that have "rendered the notion of 'capitalist democracy' into an oxymoron." Now, you can argue what the latter actually entails but given that he is pro-capitalist democracy- as a libertarian- his very words indicates he doesn't believe that it is a positive thing. Therefore, the enlargement of the franchise, or at least of those two constituencies, have been detrimental for "capitalist democracy"- insofar it has "rendered" it "into an oxymoron". This is a very straightforward reading of the words as spoken. That is literally what Thiel "wants people to think". If you refuse to accept that A is A, there's no end of convincing to move your subjective opinion.
        ifyoubuildit 5y ago
        > Therefore, the enlargement of the franchise, or at least of those two constituencies, have been detrimental for "capitalist democracy"- insofar it has "rendered" it "into an oxymoron" This is where my reading and yours differ. You seem to see capitalist democracy being an oxymoron as a value judgment. I see it as saying that these constituencies have historically voted for more socialist style policies. So in this case more democracy equals less capitalism, therefore capitalist democracy is an oxymoron. Now you may see this as "cognitive gymnastics", but that's kind of how I see your reading, so I think that's just our biases at play. Not sure if you saw me say this elsewhere in the thread, but I'm curious what you 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