3 ms·
Most of what people call morality is just their own feelings or interest or some attempt to protect their ego, it's basically just an expression of narcissism.
by monideas 21d ago
Most of what people call morality is just their own feelings or interest or some attempt to protect their ego, it's basically just an expression of narcissism.
The cultivation of a sense of actual morality requires a lot of study and humility and quieting your own feelings and ego. This is very difficult and most people can't do it, ideally in a healthy society the elites you have are people who can and do do this.
Ironically Thiel in particular is precisely one of these people. He's very thoughtful and well read and displays a lot of humility in his speech and conduct.
- antonvs 21d ago> Most of what people call morality is just their own feelings or interest or some attempt to protect their ego, it's basically just an expression of narcissism. Oh good grief. Hot take of the month right there. All you're doing is demonstrating how uninformed you are on the subject. Can you name anything you've ever read about this? > [Thiel] displays a lot of humility in his speech and conduct. You can't be serious. Where in this does the talk of the "Antichrist" fit? What kind of humility are you talking about? Because if it means intellectual modesty, willingness to acknowledge one's own fallibility, or reluctance to cast one's own political/intellectual beliefs as uniquely farsighted, Thiel's public record is not consist with "displaying a lot of humility."
- monideas 21d agoThe reason you call Thiel immoral or psychopathic is because he's wealthy and this evokes jealousy in you, it's a threat to your ego and your own sense of self worth. It's really that simple and this is a good illustration of what I'm talking about.
- buellerbueller 21d agoNo, Thiel is immoral because he is funding a panopticon and wants to get rid of democracy in favor of authoritarianism. It's really that simple, and your blindness to his cartoonish level of villainy is a good illustration of what everyone who is pushing back against you is talking about.
- monideas 21d agoPeople who say they are against panopticons and for democracy are universally fine with subjecting their political enemies to panopticons and only for democracy when their side wins.
- esalman 21d agoQuotes from the man himself: On Democracy and Freedom: "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible" On Competition: "Competition is for losers" On Technology and Control: "One of the things I like about technology is that when technology is unregulated, you can change the world without getting approval from other people. At its best, it's not subject to democratic control and not subject to the majority, which I think is often hostile to change" On Reputation: "I'd rather be seen as evil than incompetent"
- monideas 21d agoJust because these ideas are heterodox relative to prevailing norms which makes you uncomfortable, it doesn’t make them immoral ideas. I wouldn’t say these statements even have moral judgments in them either way. For example, this doesn’t even ascribe moral weight to “freedom” or “democracy” just that they are at odds. This is why these types of things are better left to elite minded people who are capable of these types of discussions. You’re just responding essentially to the valence of these terms. “Democracy = good feeling, freedom = good feeling, how can good feeling != good feeling?” This is the level at which you’re engaging.
- anonymars 21d ago> these types of things are better left to elite minded people who are capable of these types of discussions In a world of eye-poppingly hot takes, I commend your ability to somehow raise the bar Bonus points for dismissing things like "you can change the world without getting approval from other people" (you could hardly ask for a more substantive topic to debate in moral philosophy than one's freedom to affect other people) as mere valence-level "how can good feeling != good feeling" sophistry
- esalman 21d agoIf these were mere ideas we wouldn't have a problem. On a given day anyone can come up with worse ideas. What makes us separate from animals and thrive as a civilization is that majority of us do not act on our intrusive ideas without consequences. Thiel is an exception because he is acting on thsea ideas, causing harm to real innocent people, without any regard for consequences.
- shimman 21d agoThis is a very childlike understanding of how people engage with politics across the US. Fitting that immigrant tech workers wouldn't understand the culture then cry foul when rightfully called out on it. Maybe DHH was right.
- monideas 21d agoThis is exactly how most people engage with politics across the US (and all over the world) and I am not an immigrant tech worker. Both of my grandfathers served in WW2 in the US military.
- shimman 21d agoDon't really believe you, looking at past comments you don't really come across as someone raised in America while also being completely unaware of what local politics looks like or how US citizens engage with politics. Not too mention the completely sociopathic comments made above. Are you trying to fool me or Stephen Miller here?
- monideas 21d agoI was born and raised and lived in America up until my mid 30s. I am just very clearpilled or perhaps blackpilled on the nature of things in the US. I am completely aware of how people engage in politics and I’ve lived all around the US, things just get worse and worse. Fortunately I am no longer subject to the insanity and I don’t really care anymore.
- GOD_Over_Djinn 21d agoWhat was DHH right about? Reference went over my head
- singleshot_ 21d agoPeople with morals are narcissists and Peter Thiel is humble. Well, that’s a point of view, I guess.
- monideas 21d agoPeople with morals are moral. People often confuse morality with just their own feelings, interests, ego. If you don't understand this then likely you are not actually moral.
- deleted 21d ago[deleted]
- jubalfh 21d ago[flagged]