3 ms·

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

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
      - Apocryphon 5y ago
        > 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. Do you think Thiel would be in favor of more socialist-style policies? Even some? Do you think he views the diminishment of capitalist democracy as a negative trend? Well, there you have it. > I can acknowledge something that isn't beneficial for my cause without immediately desiring to end that thing Thiel doesn't strike me as someone who's politically "live and let live", so to speak. This is a situation where the man's reputation precedes him. Perhaps he doesn't want to overturn something beneficial to others, but he might be in favor of offsetting that benefit in order to further his cause. And what you are willing to acknowledge is immaterial, as you are not Peter Thiel.
        ifyoubuildit 5y ago
        > Do you think Thiel would be in favor of more socialist-style policies? Even some? Does that mean that he will automatically be opposed to anything that could contribute to socialist policies being enacted? I think this is the jump that you're making, and was what I was trying to address with my pay raise analogy. To take it to the extreme, the sun coming up tomorrow makes it possible for socialist policies to be enacted. Do you think if Thiel realizes this, he'll try to blow up the sun? And I'm not claiming to know anything about whether the guy wishes women couldn't vote, maybe he does. I just don't see that in what is written. OP edited his post to include a link of Thiel responding himself, but with your opinion of him being what it is, is it safe to assume you don't believe him? EDIT: someone linked to a comment thread from 6 years ago talking about this. Its interesting to see how similar the discussion is. I think both sides are mostly arguing in good faith, this is just one of those "is the dress blue or is it gold" things.

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
    - Apocryphon 5y ago
      > 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. Do you think Thiel would be in favor of more socialist-style policies? Even some? Do you think he views the diminishment of capitalist democracy as a negative trend? Well, there you have it. > I can acknowledge something that isn't beneficial for my cause without immediately desiring to end that thing Thiel doesn't strike me as someone who's politically "live and let live", so to speak. This is a situation where the man's reputation precedes him. Perhaps he doesn't want to overturn something beneficial to others, but he might be in favor of offsetting that benefit in order to further his cause. And what you are willing to acknowledge is immaterial, as you are not Peter Thiel.
      - ifyoubuildit 5y ago
        > Do you think Thiel would be in favor of more socialist-style policies? Even some? Does that mean that he will automatically be opposed to anything that could contribute to socialist policies being enacted? I think this is the jump that you're making, and was what I was trying to address with my pay raise analogy. To take it to the extreme, the sun coming up tomorrow makes it possible for socialist policies to be enacted. Do you think if Thiel realizes this, he'll try to blow up the sun? And I'm not claiming to know anything about whether the guy wishes women couldn't vote, maybe he does. I just don't see that in what is written. OP edited his post to include a link of Thiel responding himself, but with your opinion of him being what it is, is it safe to assume you don't believe him? EDIT: someone linked to a comment thread from 6 years ago talking about this. Its interesting to see how similar the discussion is. I think both sides are mostly arguing in good faith, this is just one of those "is the dress blue or is it gold" things.