Peter Thiel and the Undecided Trump Voter
abovethelaw.com
abovethelaw.com
I would consider most undecided voters to be sane, rational people with good consciences because I admit that both candidates have their warts and what it all boils down to is what would best for the country. With that said, the undecided voter knows better than to even think about publicly expressing that they might consider voting Trump, out of fear of having their property stolen or burned, reputation tarnished, etc.
The left has been hijacked by extreme left-wing groups taking the podium from classical liberals, and the party itself is imploding under the repeated revelations from Wikileaks and Project Veritas. It truly is an election that will go down in history.
Also, Facebook endured alot of external backlash for continuing to have him on the Board, so much that Facebook had to release a statement to address it: http://s13.postimg.org/ohe1sci6f/mmexport1476831885441.jpg
Are you asserting that people have to associate with others they don't agree with in terms of ideologies? Because I'm sorry but I'm not inviting my alcoholic fundie uncle to the cookout. He's an ass and he has poor taste in beer. Joking aside, the freedom of association is a civil right just as much as free speech. If I don't want to associate with anyone that's my right. And it's a right that extends to private organizations. If the Advocate wants to mock Peter Thiel or otherwise not ever invite him to their events that's their right. Conversely, Thiel is free to do the same without interference. Why is this a problem with you? Do you want force people to associate with each other when they would better off not associating at all?
Sam Altman summed it up and explained his decision in his blog: http://blog.samaltman.com/the-2016-election
Being banned on social media or not invited to a conference isn't illegal since your free to speak and associate with whom you wish. If Twitter/Facebook or some private organization doesn't want to associate with you doesn't mean you're forced to not speak. You just can't speak with or through them.
As for the rest of your comment it just smacks of naivety of someone who's not studied political history. First, classical liberalism use to be the left but ceased to be the left the moment it shifted rightward toward sympathizing with fascists as what happened in countries like Germany under the Weimer Republic. Second, left-wing groups that you deem extreme in the United States are fairly moderate in terms of global left-right politics. Asking for LGBT people to be added to the protected classes under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 isn't extreme. If such legal extensions are extreme to you then you need to ask yourself if you're actually a liberal and not some Burkean libertarian conservative.
So unless you got a constitutional lawyer that has a solid argument against site-wide bans of users, I'm just not going to listen to you until then.
Any tech/business/non-political conference that decides to go through each persons political leanings and decides whether or not the group finds them satisfactory before allowing them to talk is such a dangerous idea IMO. It is indeed a voluntary action and one that I want nothing to do with. The fact that so many people on HN can't see the problems with mixing partisan politics with business in order to shame another persons views scares me.
If this was any other forum such as a news site's comment section or one of those protests by inexperienced university kids then I would be more understanding. But I don't believe I can hold the people on HN or in the tech community to that low standard... they should really know better. Sadly the media feeds into this hysteria.
This Less Wrong article has never been more relevant:
"People go funny in the head when talking about politics." http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/
or better yet http://lesswrong.com/lw/gt/a_fable_of_science_and_politics/
So it's distasteful that I don't want to associate with people of my own free will? Are you serious?
"The fact that so many people on HN can't see the problems with mixing partisan politics with business in order to shame another persons views scares me."
What scares me if folks like you that want to use force of another kind to obligate me to associate with people I wouldn't urinate on if they were on fire. Seriously, I would never work for the likes of Peter Thiel under any circumstances. I have my standards, you should too.
"If this was any other forum such as a news site's comment section or one of those protests by inexperienced university kids then I would be more understanding. But I don't believe I can hold the people on HN or in the tech community to that low standard... they should really know better. Sadly the media feeds into this hysteria."
Sorry, but none of that gives a moral theory of obligation for me to work for or with people like Peter Thiel.
"This Less Wrong article has never been more relevant."
I don't give two craps about LessWrong pseudo-intellectualism. Either present a theory that I'm obligated to associate with the likes of Peter Thiel or admit you have no moral theory or basis from which to obligate me or others to associate with those we choose freely not to associate with.
I wouldn't say it's distasteful, but I would say that it's comically oversensitive that you wouldn't want to associate with people just because of political opinions. There is no such thing as a wrong political opinion.
On some level - I think it is fine to choose your social contacts. Taken to extreme, as many people seem to do on social media, filters your social bubble to only "Other Yous". I feel doing that actively harmful to one's self. Stifling their own view of the world and limiting it only to the parts they agree with. Nobody is saying you should go grab a beer with Peter Thiel. It is better to try and understand each other's opinions, even if you disagree, than to demonize or dehumanize anyone for their beliefs.
The line between "Those people are violent and dangerous and I wouldn't save their lives if I could" to "Those people should be rounded up and killed for the benefit of everyone else" has been historically thin and often crossed. If they're such bad people, does the world really need them? It's an easy and rational conclusion to make if you truly believe it.
One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter and all that. It's better to understand the other viewpoint than to assert that it is wrong, simply for "being wrong".
Kinda hard to listen to someone who thinks me being transgender makes me subhuman or mentally incompetent. It's a basic standard that you have to see the other person as a person first before any meaningful exchange is possible. And to assert it is my moral duty to make them understand is nonsensical.
"aken to extreme, as many people seem to do on social media, filters your social bubble to only "Other Yous". I feel doing that actively harmful to one's self. Stifling their own view of the world and limiting it only to the parts they agree with."
I've ranged the political spectrum more than most. From nationalism (with some racialist notions) to currently a Mutualist. I seriously doubt there's anything I can learn from the likes of Ben Shapiro when it comes to conservatism. Those folks are light weights compared to George Will and the late William F Buckley Jr. If I want to refresh my memory on conservative ideology I got dozens of essays by more competent people from years past to read. I don't need to listen someone spew an Obama birther theory to expand my horizons.
"The line between "Those people are violent and dangerous and I wouldn't save their lives if I could" to "Those people should be rounded up and killed for the benefit of everyone else" has been historically thin and often crossed. If they're such bad people, does the world really need them? It's an easy and rational conclusion to make if you truly believe it."
Yeah cause me not listening to a bigoted relative tell me that water fluoridation turned me a "tranny queer" is going to lead to people putting them in a concentration camp.
In all seriousness, your logic is very tenuous as there's no evidence of a massive liberal or progressive wave of hate coming. I don't know of any mainstream liberal or even a decently read anarchist advocating for the extermination of social conservatives. Rather I read every day CNS or Free Republic or Townhall how being a "transgendered" is "dangerous and delusional." So frankly, I'm not gonna be friends with such people. Would you?
It is extremely difficult to treat people as people when they refuse you the same respect. The answer isn't to step down to their level though. It may be "childish" or "naive" advice but it is a virtue I hold myself to all the same.
>I've ranged the political spectrum more than most. From nationalism (with some racialist notions) to currently a Mutualist. I seriously doubt there's anything I can learn from the likes of Ben Shapiro when it comes to conservatism. Those folks are light weights compared to George Will and the late William F Buckley Jr. If I want to refresh my memory on conservative ideology I got dozens of essays by more competent people from years past to read. I don't need to listen someone spew an Obama birther theory to expand my horizons.
The social-bubble comment was speaking in general, not necessarily of you. I apologize if I failed to make that clear enough. Choosing who one associates with is fine. Choosing what they prefer to hear or listen to is fine in moderation. I believe there is such a thing as "too much filtering" and anyone regardless of their political leanings is at risk of sealing themselves off in an echo chamber. A few days on Twitter is enough to see many, many echo chambers shouting past their opposites and "circlejerking" their own ideologies. Both sides only increasing the divide between themselves.
>In all seriousness, your logic is very tenuous as there's no evidence of a massive liberal or progressive wave of hate coming. I don't know of any mainstream liberal or even a decently read anarchist advocating for the extermination of social conservatives.
We must be in two very, very different social bubbles. Thankfully more property has been damaged than people killed at this point - but I'm not looking forward to what the next decade brings. The past twelve years has seen a drastic and increasingly large ideological gap between people. With the widening gap - and escalation of threats and "acceptable behavior" has risen, progressively worsening each year.
One side championing various forms and various levels of "social justice", some more agreeable than others, and the "racist/sexist/___ist bigots" who disagree, even if only in extremity. One of these two sides receives a disproportionate amount of mob justice, internet/social-media brigades, and dehumanization for "having the wrong beliefs". The bullying behavior is excused with reasons such as "They deserve it for their bigoted beliefs!" or "They're racists/sexists/misogynists!". I've noticed the accusations only sometimes match up with reality and slowly increasing number have been proven to have been fabricated entirely. Either for attention or an excuse to act out - I'm not sure which but I do hold a bias in one direction.
Now pardon me, I went off on a tangent below. I left it however, as I feel it may provide some insight into why I believe what I believe.
Seeing as you twice mentioned transgenderism, surely you have heard of Paul R. McHugh? Based only on what you've said in your post, I would assume your thoughts on him are negative: He's a bigot, a "tranny hater", lacks any credibility, that sort of stuff.
Now here is one of the largest reasons I've come to hold the beliefs I hold: I've received death threats for the cardinal sin of giving even the smallest amount of thought towards the idea that he might be right. For most transexuals, I've now been placed in the "asshole bucket" so to speak. The fact I identify as the opposite gender doesn't matter. I'm a self-hater, an "enemy", brainwashed, "not a real transexual", a bigot myself! You name it, I've been called it by this point.
I don't see these people as being any different than the bigots we have both dealt with. I'm able to see where they stand. They refuse to see where I stand. It isn't even an inability to see things my way - but a complete and utter refusal. I do not see that as being good.
Again, is it my moral duty to be a nice person to what amounts to as jerks? This seems to be something you can't provide so how about you admit I have no such duty to be nice to said jerks. Because that's really what it boils down to which seems to me that people want to put up fake politeness when in practice all that does is stress out the jerk in question and the person trying to be nice to said jerk.
"Choosing what they prefer to hear or listen to is fine in moderation. believe there is such a thing as "too much filtering" and anyone regardless of their political leanings is at risk of sealing themselves off in an echo chamber."
No it's called my moral right of free association. I'm not going to listen to a David Duke or a Paul McHugh ever. As in never. And there's no reason to moderate that practice. I don't listen to Neo Nazis. I don't listen to alt-medicine crackpots. I don't listen to Flat Earthers. So, there's no need to moderate this when the other side of the argument is categorical wrong. You don't debate someone who screams that 2 plus 2 equals 5.1. You just shake your head and move on. Such people have nothing to contribute in terms of my knowledge base and to entertain them is to waste your time and theirs.
"Thankfully more property has been damaged than people killed at this point - but I'm not looking forward to what the next decade brings."
Tweets and facebook memes don't constitute assault nor vandalism. And you have a higher chance today from dying a car wreck of your own making than from a random act of terrorism.
"The past twelve years has seen a drastic and increasingly large ideological gap between people. With the widening gap - and escalation of threats and "acceptable behavior" has risen, progressively worsening each year."
Yeah that gap is widening because certain people (aka social conservatives) don't want to move on. Specifically, the social conservatives in question demand LGBT people like myself to be in the closet or forced into mental wards where I'm to be subjected to "reparative therapies (usually includes things like ECT aka electro-shock therapy)." So, I'm sorry if I'm not going to listen to or be polite to such people. Either they need to acknowledge my civil rights or don't bother interacting with me at all. I don't think what I state is extreme, it's quite moderate in terms of global political movements. Even conservatives in other countries agree with my position, so basically there's no excuse at this point for the US social conservatives to keep fighting these issues.
"Seeing as you twice mentioned transgenderism, surely you have heard of Paul R. McHugh? Based only on what you've said in your post, I would assume your thoughts on him are negative: He's a bigot, a "tranny hater", lacks any credibility, that sort of stuff."
Yes and he's a complete dirtbag when it comes to defending Cardinal Law from the investigation on the molestation accusations. Dude went as far as to claim the victims were deluded or mentally incompetent. So no, I don't listen to dirtbag rent-o-shrinks that have no moral spine to stand up to his own church when it has corrupt cardinals and other staff protecting molesters.
"Now here is one of the largest reasons I've come to hold the beliefs I hold: I've received death threats for the cardinal sin of giving even the smallest amount of thought towards the idea that he might be right."
Well I don't think you deserve threats but you are a dirtbag by implication at worse or outright dumb at best. McHugh's thesis holds no water in light of the various studies so far. All you have to do is search for it on Google Scholar to see why.
"I don't see these people as being any different than the bigots we have both dealt with. I'm able to see where they stand. They refuse to see where I stand. It isn't even an inability to see things my way - but a complete and utter refusal. I do not see that as being good."
Sorry but McHugh is a dirtbag for so many reasons and no I won't ever entertain his positions. If this is too much for you it's best you stop replying to my comments or never engage me again. McHugh is basically the creationist of gender identity, so I don't listen to said crackpots. Deal with it.
No one's talking about "silencing" or "banning" him. That's quite a severe misattribution of what people are actually saying.
1. Against corruption
2. For specific values of the Republican party, primarily these three things---in no particular order: (a) lower taxes, less government (b) tighter immigration (c) preservation of conservative culture and the constitution.
I am a bleeding liberal when it comes to almost all social issues. But I share the GOP's principles as they relate to fiscal policy and the boundaries of the government.
But that's beside the point. The point I'm trying to make is this: no one cares that you're trans. And no one cares that I'm bi. We all have the same rights. We don't need to be granted more "civil rights" because we fall into some group. Blaming the system is simply not valid unless you can provide evidence.
>system that supports oppression of minorities which means you're acting against your self interest and that of others
To which I said that I don't think we're in a system that does that. I don't think we're "oppressed by the system". I work with trans people and gay people. I'm LGBT myself. Everyone is paid the same. No one cares that some of us are "minorities".
That doesn't imply the system oppresses. People oppress people and systems can aid or mitigate that oppression.
"I work with trans people and gay people. I'm LGBT myself. Everyone is paid the same."
Statistics on employment and wages say otherwise.
"No one cares that some of us are "minorities"."
Tell that to the evangelical Christians who number at least 50 million in the United States and many of whom own and operate businesses which a couple I've personally worked at while in the closet.
In short, your belief is that there's no culture of oppression among social conservatives in the work place, housing, or even medical care? Can you back that up with actual statistics showing that in contradiction to existing published data? Or are you one of those folks that think your big city life encompasses the whole of the United States (aka I got mine so screw you mentality)?
"Using data from the 2000 U.S. Census, the authors explore two alternative explanations for the sexual orientation wage gap: occupational sorting, and human capital differences. They find that lesbian women earned more than heterosexual women irrespective of marital status, while gay men earned less than their married heterosexual counterparts but more than their cohabitating heterosexual counterparts. Results of a Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition indicate that the relative wage advantages observed for some groups of lesbians and gay men were mainly owing to greater levels of human capital accumulation (particularly education), while occupational sorting had little or no influence."
http://www.jstor.org/stable/25249171
I respect the fact that you hold an opinion that opposes mine, but you haven't convinced me that you are right and I am wrong.
I'm all for disallowing discrimination based on sexuality and gender identity in the workplace. But I see mandates on pronoun use (and other issues of that nature) as the government forcing an ideology upon people. And I certainly don't think being LGBT holds anyone back from reaching their goals in this country.
Your paper doesn't refute the the studies done by others which shows LGBT people are more likely to be unemployed and physically/sexually assaulted. These are reported even by the police in major cities in the US as a significant problem. It gets worse when you factor in race as part of the background in these studies. So, you'll have to excuse me if I don't take your one study as the biblical truth on the condition of LGBT people in the United States (of whom I am a part).
"I respect the fact that you hold an opinion that opposes mine, but you haven't convinced me that you are right and I am wrong."
Not my job. Open your eyes and look at the world beyond your comfort zone is all I can tell you.
"But I see mandates on pronoun use (and other issues of that nature) as the government forcing an ideology upon people."
New York is one state with such a law. No other state with anti-discrimination protections for LGBT people have such provisions in theirs. So the tone of such laws goes against your hyperbole. Also, if you think addressing someone (trans or otherwise) by their preferred pronouns is such a bad thing I think you got your priorities mixed up. Me being trans myself I think pronouns are important as much as getting my legal name right, but slip ups can and do occur (hell, my mom still mixes up my name with that of her grand son's, no clue why) which is fine. But if you willfully call a trans woman a him then you're just being a dick. And don't expect said trans woman to be kind to you in any setting (professional or otherwise).
"And I certainly don't think being LGBT holds anyone back from reaching their goals in this country."
You have your view versus thousands of LGBT people who aren't having such a fun time looking for work. Especially transgender people. And the fact you side with Donald Trump, who is the Republican Party's candidate makes it worse. Not so much because Trump, but because Trump represents a repugnant political party that even refuses to acknowledge that sexual orientation does not need to be cured. That's a bare minimum to get the mind-share of the majority of LGBT people in the United States. Drop the anti-LGBT reparative therapy plank in the platform then you'll get many more of us LGBT people considering your platform. Otherwise, we'll just vote Democrat since they oppose such therapies in their platform. If that's too hard for your side to do (BTW, even Log Cabin Republicans aren't support the GOP at this point) then expect to have bad time with your LGBT siblings. We're not backing down, ever.
As somebody raised during Communism in Bulgaria, I can say all Left are the same - eventually, they either turn Nazi or Stalinist!
The gay parades are one of those extreme manifestations.
Well, of course, times today are slightly different than during Hitler or Stalin, but the cruelty against people who think differently is the same order of magnitude!
The patronizing, the unsubstantiated claim of superiority, the low-class ridicule of half of America is simply disgusting.
I watched Michael Moore yesterday, and he is a manifestation of that kind. But, I guess, the culture in the states have totally destroyed by the TV and movie culture promoting ridicule and pranks! In general, there's no more respect, there's Narcissism, and all this is not going to end up well!
PETA isn't liberal.
"As somebody raised during Communism in Bulgaria, I can say all Left are the same - eventually, they either turn Nazi or Stalinist!"
Stalinism isn't socialism either, it's just industrial capitalism with a cult of personality.
"The gay parades are one of those extreme manifestations."
Clearly you're not gay so you've never had to deal with thugs like skinheads try to turn your face into a fine red paste on the pavement. Pride parades are basically a big middle finger to people like those skinheads. LGBT people engage in them to show that they'll never stop being themselves. If this is offensive to you then you need to grow a thicker skin.
"Well, of course, times today are slightly different than during Hitler or Stalin, but the cruelty against people who think differently is the same order of magnitude!"
Yeah gay pride parades are totally Stalinist rallies considering Stalin put LGBT people into gulags. /s
"The patronizing, the unsubstantiated claim of superiority, the low-class ridicule of half of America is simply disgusting."
I think you're confusing brogressives for actual leftists. Brogressives (like how they're portrayed by South Park) aren't legitimately progressive or left since to them it's about the performance of appearing left rather than supporting or engaging in leftist ideas (think dudes who claim to support georgism but oppose implementing Land Value Tax). So please make the distinction between the PCbros and actual leftists.
"I watched Michael Moore yesterday, and he is a manifestation of that kind. But, I guess, the culture in the states have totally destroyed by the TV and movie culture promoting ridicule and pranks! In general, there's no more respect, there's Narcissism, and all this is not going to end up well!"
If being smug is your sufficient condition to becoming literally Stalin I'm not sure your thesis really makes sense. Stalin wasn't just some smug jerk from Georgia but an actual murderous thug that was paranoid beyond belief. A liberal being smug isn't an exclusive trait to liberals anymore than it's an exclusive trait to conservatives (Rush Limbaugh is the essence of conservative smugness). Smugness is a human trait and to make it into something otherwise betrays your position. I suggest you think it over and question whether or not you're just upset that some leftists aren't listening to you online. Because you're not owed a hearing (nor am I) online/offline just because you have opinions.