5 ms·

Quotes from the man himself: On Democracy and Freedom: "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible" On Competition: "Competition is for los

Quotes 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 6d ago
Just 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 6d 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 6d ago
  If 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.

monideas 6d ago

Just 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 6d 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 6d ago
If 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.