9 ms·

> perhaps even more extreme views such as neoreaction Evidence? I have and listened to Thiel extensively and see no signs of neoreaction. In fact, he has been

> perhaps even more extreme views such as neoreaction Evidence? I have and listened to Thiel extensively and see no signs of neoreaction. In fact, he has been pretty consistent in his claims of pursuing a less violent future.

anon9384929 5y ago
I think to the posters point, his words and actions don’t line up. If he wants a less violent future, he shouldn’t bankroll those advocating for, condoning, or downplaying violence such as zip ties and gallows at the Capitol.
- xibalba 5y ago
  Whether you realize it or not, your oblique approach is undermining your claims. What is your claim, specifically? Who did Thiel bankroll? For how much? Why? What did they do with respect to Jan 6?
  - anon9384929 5y ago
    I mean, first of all, Trump himself??? Blake Masters? Kris Kobach? My claim is exactly what I stated. These people, including Thiel, support politicians who support, condone, or downplay violence that has already happened. Whether you realize it or not, trying to get intellectual about simple things is undermining the doubt you’re trying to cast.
  - exogeny 5y ago
    Thiel is heavily behind his protege, Blake Masters. Representative sample: "Saving Arizona PAC, the Thiel-funded effort that has already spent nearly $1.7 million in Arizona, has launched ads attacking state Attorney General Mark Brnovich, Masters' principal GOP opponent, for rejecting Trump's lie that voter fraud cost him the election. "Mark Brnovich says President Trump is wrong on voter fraud. Really? Brnovich failed to convene a grand jury, certified Biden as president. Now he's nowhere to be found, making excuses … instead of standing with our president," the ad says." [0] If you can't find evidence of Thiel's direct or by association diminishing of January 6th, then you're either not looking in good faith or you don't know how to use a computer. 0: https://www.salon.com/2021/10/15/peter-thiel-bets-on-the-far-right-tech-tycoon-spending-millions-to-bankroll-trump-wing-of/ https://www.salon.com/2021/10/15/peter-thiel-bets-on-the-far...
- atlasunshrugged 5y ago
  How do you know he doesn't have some theory of change that leads him to believe supporting Blake Masters, J.D. Vance, etc. won't lead to a less violent future? Maybe he believes they'll take an extremely hard line on China which will end up as a deterrent and prevent an action on Taiwan which would start a massive war or trade dispute tearing the world apart. I don't have any special insights here, but just because he backs politicians that you may find odious, doesn't necessarily mean that he isn't going for a less violent future.
  - anon9384929 5y ago
    You’re taking a utilitarian and relativistic view on this, which feels disingenuous in this context. He is already backing people who {support, condone, downplay} violence that has already happened. I don’t find it debating on good faith to ignore real violence by countering with hypothetical violence. Furthermore, he could easily advocate for a more hawkish view on China - a wildly popular view across the entire American political spectrum - while using his platform to disavow the real violence already done against Americans (that is also dividing us at a time when we need to have a united front against China.) So, sure, we could do mental gymnastics to find some weird, hypothetical justification, or we could just look at the evidence in front of us.
    - dnissley 5y ago
      These aren't the views of the poster you're responding to -- they're just speculating about what Thiel's unstated motivations could be. So accusations of bad faith don't really apply here as far as I can see. Thiel seems pragmatic, if nothing else, so it's not a leap to speculate that he's thinking in terms of tradeoffs here (minor violence now vs major violence later). He could do as you propose, but that might not be an effective strategy (seems likely not to be), however pure it might make him in our bubble's calculations.
    - atlasunshrugged 5y ago
      Why is that disingenuous? Plenty of people/governments/whatever have backed awful people for "the greater good." His theory of change might be that it's worth destroying American democracy in order to preserve American hegemony because he believes it's a fundamentally better world with America as the sole superpower; my point was I don't have any special insight and that people are really complicated and sometimes just because they do things we don't like, doesn't mean they're bad people.
ModernMech 5y ago
This piece goes into it pretty deeply: https://reason.com/2020/08/02/wait-wasnt-peter-thiel-a-libertarian/ https://reason.com/2020/08/02/wait-wasnt-peter-thiel-a-liber...
- api 5y ago
  That’s a fantastic piece on a nexus that has puzzled me as much as it puzzles this writer. The thing I find most puzzling is how confused and irrational yet oddly unified it is. I think that unity comes from all the misogyny and racism. It’s more identity politics than the identity politics they despise. They doth protest too much.
urdumbass 5y ago
[flagged]

anon9384929 5y ago

I think to the posters point, his words and actions don’t line up. If he wants a less violent future, he shouldn’t bankroll those advocating for, condoning, or downplaying violence such as zip ties and gallows at the Capitol.

xibalba 5y ago
Whether you realize it or not, your oblique approach is undermining your claims. What is your claim, specifically? Who did Thiel bankroll? For how much? Why? What did they do with respect to Jan 6?
- anon9384929 5y ago
  I mean, first of all, Trump himself??? Blake Masters? Kris Kobach? My claim is exactly what I stated. These people, including Thiel, support politicians who support, condone, or downplay violence that has already happened. Whether you realize it or not, trying to get intellectual about simple things is undermining the doubt you’re trying to cast.
- exogeny 5y ago
  Thiel is heavily behind his protege, Blake Masters. Representative sample: "Saving Arizona PAC, the Thiel-funded effort that has already spent nearly $1.7 million in Arizona, has launched ads attacking state Attorney General Mark Brnovich, Masters' principal GOP opponent, for rejecting Trump's lie that voter fraud cost him the election. "Mark Brnovich says President Trump is wrong on voter fraud. Really? Brnovich failed to convene a grand jury, certified Biden as president. Now he's nowhere to be found, making excuses … instead of standing with our president," the ad says." [0] If you can't find evidence of Thiel's direct or by association diminishing of January 6th, then you're either not looking in good faith or you don't know how to use a computer. 0: https://www.salon.com/2021/10/15/peter-thiel-bets-on-the-far-right-tech-tycoon-spending-millions-to-bankroll-trump-wing-of/ https://www.salon.com/2021/10/15/peter-thiel-bets-on-the-far...
atlasunshrugged 5y ago
How do you know he doesn't have some theory of change that leads him to believe supporting Blake Masters, J.D. Vance, etc. won't lead to a less violent future? Maybe he believes they'll take an extremely hard line on China which will end up as a deterrent and prevent an action on Taiwan which would start a massive war or trade dispute tearing the world apart. I don't have any special insights here, but just because he backs politicians that you may find odious, doesn't necessarily mean that he isn't going for a less violent future.
- anon9384929 5y ago
  You’re taking a utilitarian and relativistic view on this, which feels disingenuous in this context. He is already backing people who {support, condone, downplay} violence that has already happened. I don’t find it debating on good faith to ignore real violence by countering with hypothetical violence. Furthermore, he could easily advocate for a more hawkish view on China - a wildly popular view across the entire American political spectrum - while using his platform to disavow the real violence already done against Americans (that is also dividing us at a time when we need to have a united front against China.) So, sure, we could do mental gymnastics to find some weird, hypothetical justification, or we could just look at the evidence in front of us.
  - dnissley 5y ago
    These aren't the views of the poster you're responding to -- they're just speculating about what Thiel's unstated motivations could be. So accusations of bad faith don't really apply here as far as I can see. Thiel seems pragmatic, if nothing else, so it's not a leap to speculate that he's thinking in terms of tradeoffs here (minor violence now vs major violence later). He could do as you propose, but that might not be an effective strategy (seems likely not to be), however pure it might make him in our bubble's calculations.
  - atlasunshrugged 5y ago
    Why is that disingenuous? Plenty of people/governments/whatever have backed awful people for "the greater good." His theory of change might be that it's worth destroying American democracy in order to preserve American hegemony because he believes it's a fundamentally better world with America as the sole superpower; my point was I don't have any special insight and that people are really complicated and sometimes just because they do things we don't like, doesn't mean they're bad people.

ModernMech 5y ago

This piece goes into it pretty deeply: https://reason.com/2020/08/02/wait-wasnt-peter-thiel-a-libertarian/ https://reason.com/2020/08/02/wait-wasnt-peter-thiel-a-liber...

api 5y ago
That’s a fantastic piece on a nexus that has puzzled me as much as it puzzles this writer. The thing I find most puzzling is how confused and irrational yet oddly unified it is. I think that unity comes from all the misogyny and racism. It’s more identity politics than the identity politics they despise. They doth protest too much.

urdumbass 5y ago

[flagged]