Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

All you did was quote a subset of what I quoted.

To add to it, the thesis, so you can see the context.

> I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.

He's obviously pro freedom in his essay; his whole essay is on why the reduction of democracy is important, specifically calling out women's suffrage.



In the essay¹ he literally says he doesn't want to remove women's vote:

> 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.

I don't expect what he actually said will change anyone's mind about what they think he's said though...

¹ https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...


Reposting what I said elsewhere:

> Saying 'oh but that would be absurd' while also immediately walkibg it back by suggesting that not doing so won't lead to anything better ("While I don’t think any class of people should be disenfranchised, I have little hope that voting will make things better. ") and not offering any other solutions is a typical early stage fascist argument tactic to increase the acceptance of fascist ideas over time.

> What other actionable items do you take from his essay?


Your argument here seems to be something like this:

Denying a crime is exactly what a criminal would do. Thus the denial proves guilt!


No, more like denying something on the tail end of an entire essay in favor of it, followed by literally in the next sentence saying that there might not be another option rather than the abhorrent one is a way of minimizing and gaining acceptance of the abhorrent argument.


He's just saying is that he sees a problem, but no solution.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: