7 ms·

Is Peter Thiel's opposition to Women's Suffrage still policy at Facebook? https://www.huffpost.com/entry/peter-thiel-women-democracy_n_5747079be4b03ede4413f6f5

by epeus 3y ago

Is Peter Thiel's opposition to Women's Suffrage still policy at Facebook? https://www.huffpost.com/entry/peter-thiel-women-democracy_n_5747079be4b03ede4413f6f5 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/peter-thiel-women-democracy_n...

roschdal 3y ago
[flagged]
- defrost 3y ago
  So were Lex Luthor and Dr. Strangelove.
- oblio 3y ago
  So? Being a genius does not make you all knowing... or good.
- ks2048 3y ago
  I've never seen evidence of this.
spacebanana7 3y ago
The essay doesn't express opposition to women's suffrage. He just says that women are electorally tough for libertarians. E.g Without expressing opposition to the suffrage of the elderly, I could state that elderly people vote against many of the policies I like.
- oblio 3y ago
  > Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron.
  - agileAlligator 3y ago
    Yes, that is what he said. Welfare beneficiaries and women are two groups libertarians find are tough constituencies to appeal to, and both of these groups have increased in size since 1920.
    - fmbb 3y ago
      The quote says “capitalist democracy” is an oxymoron. If Thiel is pro-capitalism he thinks democracy is a problem. If he is pro-democracy he thinks capitalism is a problem.
      - gmadsen 3y ago
        in what way? I think we collectively figured out democracy doesn't work a few thousand years ago. That's why we have a democratic republic.
        master-lincoln 3y ago
        Is your democratic republic not a democracy? I don't understand your point
        poulpy123 3y ago
        never understood why conservative and libertarians americans want to make a difference between republic and democracy, it is literally in the definition of "republic" that it should be a democracy
        jfengel 3y ago
        Because it lets them make the implication that the Democratic party is un-American. And also that somehow the language is unfairly biased against them. It's absurd, just like the bizarre fetish for using the term "Democrat party" as some kind of slur. But that's the essence of American politics now: a constant culture war, where the primary thing people want out of elections is to hurt the other side rather than pursue actual political goals.
- somedude895 3y ago
  > I could state that elderly people vote against many of the policies I like. Which is actually a common narrative at Huffington Post. Old people's voting patterns are holding us back. So yeah, you're spot on.
kypro 3y ago
From your link: > It would be absurd to suggest that women’s votes will be taken away or that this would solve the political problems that vex us. While I don’t think any class of people should be disenfranchised, I have little hope that voting will make things better. Thiel isn't opposed to Women's suffrage, he's just noting that it had negative impacts (in his opinion). By that logic I'm opposed to social media.
- codetrotter 3y ago
  > By that logic I'm opposed to social media. Facebook for me was a net negative. Instagram, I still keep even though it is owned by Meta. (Just like I still keep WhatsApp even though it’s owned by Meta.) But I don’t use Instagram all that much. Instagram doesn’t even show up in the “Most Used” category in Screentime on my iPhone, for example. So for me, Instagram does not negatively affect me much. Probably mainly because I am not very active there these days. TikTok, I spend quite a bit of time watching and posting to. But I don’t feel like it’s affecting me negatively in any way. I deleted my Facebook account ages ago because I noticed that it was a waste of time and a drain of energy. Reddit I use quite a bit. And your experience there depends greatly on what subreddits you subscribe to. HN is certainly social media as well, mind you! And out of all, it is the one that has had the greatest positive impact on my life. A lot of my skills are thanks to HN. And even my current job, which I’ve had for a bit over a year now, is thanks to HN (and third party tools for filtering and searching “Who’s Hiring” threads.) For me, social media has been a net positive. But it has required that I pay attention to where and what I spend my time and energy on. God knows I wasted a lot of hours playing FarmVille on Facebook back in 2009/2010 for example.
mitthrowaway2 3y ago
This is the first I'm hearing about this, but "opposition to women's suffrage" seems like a significant misreading. The attitude of "I disagree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it", certainly can apply to voting too, and seems to be at work in this case.
- jmopp 3y ago
  That's the slippery slope people who want to take away rights exploit. Sure, you can believe women shouldn't vote. You can even go around telling people you believe women shouldn't vote. But just because you can say something, doesn't mean you should. If you say you don't believe freedom and democracy are incompatible, I am absolutely going to judge you for it because it's a stupid belief for which there is no evidence. There are several free democratic nations, a much larger number of unfree democratic nations, but there are no free undemocratic nations. And it doesn't take a degree in sociology to figure out why that is the case.
  - mitthrowaway2 3y ago
    I don't think it's a slippery slope. I'll put it another way: I'm anti-Trump. By extension, I think people who vote for Trump exert a negative influence on society by casting their votes in his favor. It also happens that these voters are predominantly rural. I also don't think rural voters should be disenfranchised, and if Trump wins the election, so be it. Part of the idea of democracy is that you do want your preferred party to win, but that doesn't automatically mean you're against all the other teams having the right to vote. It certainly can be the case that a demographic or rules change makes it harder for your team to win. That doesn't mean you are against that change, whether it's universal suffrage, proportional representation, etc. Support for fair and legitimate elections are usually a stronger foundational principle than one's support for their own favorite party. Especially because their party's victory would be empty if it wasn't won legitimately. As for whether libertarianism and democracy are at odds, I really don't know myself. I think it's fine for Thiel to have his own opinion on that.
joenot443 3y ago
What an asinine comment. What is it about Thiel that makes otherwise regular users shift into a reddit-dunk frenzy? He's just a guy, if you even read what you linked you'd find it pretty obvious that's not at all what he meant.

by epeus 3y ago

roschdal 3y ago

[flagged]

defrost 3y ago
So were Lex Luthor and Dr. Strangelove.
oblio 3y ago
So? Being a genius does not make you all knowing... or good.
ks2048 3y ago
I've never seen evidence of this.

spacebanana7 3y ago

The essay doesn't express opposition to women's suffrage. He just says that women are electorally tough for libertarians. E.g Without expressing opposition to the suffrage of the elderly, I could state that elderly people vote against many of the policies I like.

oblio 3y ago
> Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron.
- agileAlligator 3y ago
  Yes, that is what he said. Welfare beneficiaries and women are two groups libertarians find are tough constituencies to appeal to, and both of these groups have increased in size since 1920.
  - fmbb 3y ago
    The quote says “capitalist democracy” is an oxymoron. If Thiel is pro-capitalism he thinks democracy is a problem. If he is pro-democracy he thinks capitalism is a problem.
    - gmadsen 3y ago
      in what way? I think we collectively figured out democracy doesn't work a few thousand years ago. That's why we have a democratic republic.
      - master-lincoln 3y ago
        Is your democratic republic not a democracy? I don't understand your point
      - poulpy123 3y ago
        never understood why conservative and libertarians americans want to make a difference between republic and democracy, it is literally in the definition of "republic" that it should be a democracy
        jfengel 3y ago
        Because it lets them make the implication that the Democratic party is un-American. And also that somehow the language is unfairly biased against them. It's absurd, just like the bizarre fetish for using the term "Democrat party" as some kind of slur. But that's the essence of American politics now: a constant culture war, where the primary thing people want out of elections is to hurt the other side rather than pursue actual political goals.
somedude895 3y ago
> I could state that elderly people vote against many of the policies I like. Which is actually a common narrative at Huffington Post. Old people's voting patterns are holding us back. So yeah, you're spot on.

kypro 3y ago

From your link: > It would be absurd to suggest that women’s votes will be taken away or that this would solve the political problems that vex us. While I don’t think any class of people should be disenfranchised, I have little hope that voting will make things better. Thiel isn't opposed to Women's suffrage, he's just noting that it had negative impacts (in his opinion). By that logic I'm opposed to social media.

codetrotter 3y ago
> By that logic I'm opposed to social media. Facebook for me was a net negative. Instagram, I still keep even though it is owned by Meta. (Just like I still keep WhatsApp even though it’s owned by Meta.) But I don’t use Instagram all that much. Instagram doesn’t even show up in the “Most Used” category in Screentime on my iPhone, for example. So for me, Instagram does not negatively affect me much. Probably mainly because I am not very active there these days. TikTok, I spend quite a bit of time watching and posting to. But I don’t feel like it’s affecting me negatively in any way. I deleted my Facebook account ages ago because I noticed that it was a waste of time and a drain of energy. Reddit I use quite a bit. And your experience there depends greatly on what subreddits you subscribe to. HN is certainly social media as well, mind you! And out of all, it is the one that has had the greatest positive impact on my life. A lot of my skills are thanks to HN. And even my current job, which I’ve had for a bit over a year now, is thanks to HN (and third party tools for filtering and searching “Who’s Hiring” threads.) For me, social media has been a net positive. But it has required that I pay attention to where and what I spend my time and energy on. God knows I wasted a lot of hours playing FarmVille on Facebook back in 2009/2010 for example.

mitthrowaway2 3y ago

This is the first I'm hearing about this, but "opposition to women's suffrage" seems like a significant misreading. The attitude of "I disagree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it", certainly can apply to voting too, and seems to be at work in this case.

jmopp 3y ago
That's the slippery slope people who want to take away rights exploit. Sure, you can believe women shouldn't vote. You can even go around telling people you believe women shouldn't vote. But just because you can say something, doesn't mean you should. If you say you don't believe freedom and democracy are incompatible, I am absolutely going to judge you for it because it's a stupid belief for which there is no evidence. There are several free democratic nations, a much larger number of unfree democratic nations, but there are no free undemocratic nations. And it doesn't take a degree in sociology to figure out why that is the case.
- mitthrowaway2 3y ago
  I don't think it's a slippery slope. I'll put it another way: I'm anti-Trump. By extension, I think people who vote for Trump exert a negative influence on society by casting their votes in his favor. It also happens that these voters are predominantly rural. I also don't think rural voters should be disenfranchised, and if Trump wins the election, so be it. Part of the idea of democracy is that you do want your preferred party to win, but that doesn't automatically mean you're against all the other teams having the right to vote. It certainly can be the case that a demographic or rules change makes it harder for your team to win. That doesn't mean you are against that change, whether it's universal suffrage, proportional representation, etc. Support for fair and legitimate elections are usually a stronger foundational principle than one's support for their own favorite party. Especially because their party's victory would be empty if it wasn't won legitimately. As for whether libertarianism and democracy are at odds, I really don't know myself. I think it's fine for Thiel to have his own opinion on that.

joenot443 3y ago

What an asinine comment. What is it about Thiel that makes otherwise regular users shift into a reddit-dunk frenzy? He's just a guy, if you even read what you linked you'd find it pretty obvious that's not at all what he meant.