4 ms·
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 t
by 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 agoThese 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.