5 ms·

Let me give a simple example, where rhetoric is used only to excite a voting base but where the action never manifests: Trump and the Wall. Now a whole new bre

Let me give a simple example, where rhetoric is used only to excite a voting base but where the action never manifests: Trump and the Wall. Now a whole new breed of populists have arisen but use the same tactic. They play to what people want, but then never deliver. This is the oldest trick in politics. Not once does the author show a single result of Thiels work that manifests as greater nationalism. Please share what I missed.

fleetwoodsnack 4y ago
You missed my point: the underlying motive is unknowable, so whatever point you’re trying to make about the unknown and unknowable is quite literally immaterial. Setting that aside, what is knowable is one’s actions. If someone contributes to organizations and initiatives, that is sufficient to show material support. Especially so at the financial scale at which Theil provides support. I’m not interested in whether or not someone is “truly” an X or even if someone “truly believes” X. It’s enough for me to know that someone provides material support for X. Finally, you didn’t define what “greater nationalism” is supposed to mean, nor is it rigorously defined. In any case, it’s a pretty high bar for anyone, even a billionaire. Petty nationalism is bad enough.
- alldayeveryday 4y ago
  At no point have I discussed motive - I have consistently pointed to the topic of looking at actions. You are deliberately avoiding my primary thesis - namely that the author provides an inaccurate picture of Thiel's idealogy and provides no evidence to support claims that he is, for example, nationalist. To the contrary, author cites numerous transnational agendas that Thiel is instrumental in.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - fleetwoodsnack 4y ago
    These are yours: > A much more cohesive description of Thiel without the internal contradictions (a facist who is a nationalist and a libertarian and a white sepremacist and a technocrat and a globalist elite etc etc) is that of a neoliberal elite capitalist >my primary thesis - namely that the author provides an inaccurate picture of Thiel's idealogy What I’m saying: You have no way of knowing the underlying “ideology,” or lack thereof, just as the author doesn’t know either. You seem to think that I’m defending the author, when what I’m saying is you’re BOTH wrong for the SAME reason. I said some other things, but they aren’t the subject of your most recent comment. Understanding this, reread my comments and respond if necessary.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

fleetwoodsnack 4y ago

You missed my point: the underlying motive is unknowable, so whatever point you’re trying to make about the unknown and unknowable is quite literally immaterial. Setting that aside, what is knowable is one’s actions. If someone contributes to organizations and initiatives, that is sufficient to show material support. Especially so at the financial scale at which Theil provides support. I’m not interested in whether or not someone is “truly” an X or even if someone “truly believes” X. It’s enough for me to know that someone provides material support for X. Finally, you didn’t define what “greater nationalism” is supposed to mean, nor is it rigorously defined. In any case, it’s a pretty high bar for anyone, even a billionaire. Petty nationalism is bad enough.

alldayeveryday 4y ago
At no point have I discussed motive - I have consistently pointed to the topic of looking at actions. You are deliberately avoiding my primary thesis - namely that the author provides an inaccurate picture of Thiel's idealogy and provides no evidence to support claims that he is, for example, nationalist. To the contrary, author cites numerous transnational agendas that Thiel is instrumental in.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- fleetwoodsnack 4y ago
  These are yours: > A much more cohesive description of Thiel without the internal contradictions (a facist who is a nationalist and a libertarian and a white sepremacist and a technocrat and a globalist elite etc etc) is that of a neoliberal elite capitalist >my primary thesis - namely that the author provides an inaccurate picture of Thiel's idealogy What I’m saying: You have no way of knowing the underlying “ideology,” or lack thereof, just as the author doesn’t know either. You seem to think that I’m defending the author, when what I’m saying is you’re BOTH wrong for the SAME reason. I said some other things, but they aren’t the subject of your most recent comment. Understanding this, reread my comments and respond if necessary.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]