3 ms·

Thiel comes from a place where he clearly understands the rationale & goals of the modern left's social wing wrt diversity. I want to agree with him that he's r

Thiel comes from a place where he clearly understands the rationale & goals of the modern left's social wing wrt diversity. I want to agree with him that he's raising substantive issues. On the other hand, his whole piece has such a tone of arrogance that it's hard for me to get through. The obsession with "speaking truth to power" (the exact phrase & the concept behind it) feels so childish and seems to be something many people in the alt-right seem to have. I do think he makes some interesting points, especially at a high level. His "economically reductionist line of questioning" is something I think about... what are the incentives behind DEI, especially since DEI programs at large haven't seemed to accomplished their goals. And his point about rent/people wanting to live in cities seems true, too. Despite rent being crazy in NY/SF, for many people, those are the only cities they'd consider moving to.

jmacd 3y ago
Thiel seems to conflate a valid criticism (he has many) with an invalidation of an idea. His objections and anecdotes are all very instructive. There is nothing wrong with shedding light on the motivations of people and the incentives in play when it comes to any social construct. Some (many) of those things should be changed. It's hard to see where his criticisms sum to any singular great point about something bad that is going on. If you want to be (economically) reductionist, there is nothing wrong with someone else being social maximalist. Is the total social good not better than all the reductionist arguments in sum? Some say yes, some say no. He's smart. Here he's being smart about specific little things. However, I did not finish reading the article with the feeling that Peter Thiel had some greater holistic and informed point of view than any of the people and institutions he is railing against.

jmacd 3y ago

Thiel seems to conflate a valid criticism (he has many) with an invalidation of an idea. His objections and anecdotes are all very instructive. There is nothing wrong with shedding light on the motivations of people and the incentives in play when it comes to any social construct. Some (many) of those things should be changed. It's hard to see where his criticisms sum to any singular great point about something bad that is going on. If you want to be (economically) reductionist, there is nothing wrong with someone else being social maximalist. Is the total social good not better than all the reductionist arguments in sum? Some say yes, some say no. He's smart. Here he's being smart about specific little things. However, I did not finish reading the article with the feeling that Peter Thiel had some greater holistic and informed point of view than any of the people and institutions he is railing against.