The guy seems like a maniac with an aim to get whatever he wants, however he wants, with no care for the external effects.
Are you able to do a steelman of Thiel's politics, where Thiel himself would agree with your characterization?
What are his views that you agree with most? What don't you have any direct evidence of his views for?
I'm going to be honest, I can't say I've seen many articles that really try to understand Thiel's politics or intentions. Every article I read I can easily tell who the writer votes for, because there are signs of bias everywhere. I've never voted right, but the continued demonization of those who disagree with whatever is en vogue on the left and the refusal to truly try to understand them is incredibly dispiriting.
...which really did bring out many weaknesses and contradictions in his ideas. Which was disappointing, since many here on HN praised him as a pretty bright thinker.
Would someone acting in bad faith ever agree to such a thing? Maybe you could goad him into saying yes once but the right tends to use terms like "strawman" or "silencing" as a thought terminating cliche without any attempt to make clarifications.
"bad faith" used in a political thread!
All your opinions are now null and void.
Edit: Just because you don't want something to be true doesn't make it untrue.
I mean...it's not like there is much to understand. Him, Mercer and Bannon became extremely passionate about getting Trump in the WH and as soon as 2017 came around they lost all the leverage and didn't even try to strongarm Trump into doing whatever they thought was to be done.
The 3 men have been extremely relevant in getting Trump elected but were essentially gone by 2017.
He's also all over the place. He claimed that competition is for fools and have to think long and hard to get in a sector without competition....but also said that we should abolish college because people should go with their gut, also somewhat regret the 80s when everybody was high on stimulants
Thiel is funding a new breed of politicians with "hard-right" ideals. The first is Donald Trump [1], which I don't think I need to expatiate following those riots (that was widely used to mock the USA) globally.
His, protégé, Blake Masters, is running for the Arizona Senate position (backed by $10 million+ of Thiel's donations [2]). Masters has some unique ideas, such as opposing Roe vs Wade (abortion rights) and expanding gun rights (in his words, "Eliminating or restructuring the ATF, Repealing the National Firearms Act, and Opposing every kind of federal firearms database or gun registry"). You can see them right on his website - https://www.blakemasters.com/.
Also, JD Vance (backed by $10 million+ of Thiel's money [2]). Vance also has some unique ideas, such as promoting claims that Trump lost the election because of voter fraud [3] or suggesting that Biden was intentionally allowing fentanyl to flood the US because it mainly affected the Republican base [4]. You can check his website and see policy ideals similar to Masters' - https://jdvance.com/issues/.
Now, I'm not saying that everything about them is bad (everyone has flaws). I tried my best to use non-biased political resources (Reuters and Politico have a great rep on my end).
I don't understand much about American politics, but from the little I know, if I was there, I'd be nothing close to a "leftist", but more like a pro-capitalist "conservative", so I'm not really looking at this stuff from a biased lens.
So, from my foreign armchair, I just look at some stuff US politicians say and do (mostly Republicans for unclear reasons) and I'm like, nah dude, that's too extreme...
1- https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-thiel-...
2- https://www.politico.com/news/2021/05/17/peter-thiel-senate-...
3- https://www.tribtoday.com/news/local-news/2021/10/vance-spou...
4- https://sports.yahoo.com/j-d-vance-wildly-suggests-021349250...
I'm still having trouble squaring what his views are from the description (not a demand for more rigor here, just an honest appraisal) here. Sure, Trump was looney/incompetent/corrupt, and JD Vance/Blake Masters have said a few things that we can criticize, but I don't know if those pieces of evidence shed a light on Thiel's actual views. As an example, I voted for Biden/Democrats, but if you were looking at what they say/do (particularly the most controversial things in the media) as the only evidence for my views, you wouldn't understand my positions very well.
To share my version of a steelman for Thiel (I'll admit a lot of ignorance here, so anybody please correct me), it seems like there is a major throughline in a lot of what he does around Centralization vs Decentralization.
I get the impression he is for Decentralization of governments/power at large. This can show up in national politics as showing support for local nation ideals (as opposed to a more globalist perspective), limiting the scope/size of government, support for federalism, support for cryptocurrencies, support for individual rights/freedoms, support for testing new government models (i.e. Seasteading Institute), pushing back on the entrenched establishment, etc.
Is every politician he supports going to follow that playbook directly? I wouldn't expect them to. But the Centralization vs Decentralization dimension seems like something he may be thinking about if I'm reading the tea leaves. About how the individual relates to powerful entities, and what is the best relationship between the individual and the state/power for the future of humanity.
If that is in fact what his views are, I don't think they are insane myself. Yes, individual politicians can be wacky/insane, but I think there are a lot of reasonable positions/considerations on both sides that come out of thinking about that broader topic, whether any one politician is truly representing it.
I ask this because naturally I find both the far left and far right equally insane in their convictions (which never stand up to scrutiny). But being against nationalism is a separate issue and seems equally looney to me.
Nationalism is not the same as patriotism. Patriotism is great. Nationalism breeds Ayn Rand insanity mixed with supremacist views.
Basically, remember to put on your oxygen mask before helping others.
As there will always be someone somewhere suffering, this just sounds like an excuse not to help others.
If an american is thirsty and a canadian is bleeding out and you prefer to get the american some water, then that's a pretty dick move. If, say, all of europe is facing a severe energy crisis because of a war with russia against which the United States already has a significant interest; and you oppose sending european allies gas supplies because it'll raise prices at the pump for americans; then that's a pretty dick move. If you say the US should drop out of NATO because it pays the most and it can probably defend itself, that's a pretty dick move.
It is complicated, of course. But it ends with countries justifying their invasion and genocide of other countries because they have something your own country wants. Or maybe just because they think they're the best and nobody should exist but them. It'd be nice if more people were interested in being a good global citizen rather than grinding against the nash equilibrium at every step.
A lot of it is supremacism. And a lot of it takes another leap of ugliness saying whose a "true {country}ian", which becomes a racial, linguistic, or religious thing.
I don't think nationalism is particularly overrepresented in america. I do think radicalism individualism where you just can't comprehend doing things that benefit your neighbors over yourself because a cooperative society is stronger as a whole is somewhat uniquely american. and it's embarrassing.
My neighbors are American. I'm not sure how you don't see the argument you're making is just the globalist version of mine.
A lot of your argument seems to be rooted in idealism. I don't want my country to collapse because we were so arrogant to think we could save everyone.
> You do this because if you don't get your own mask on you'll pass out and then both of you will be fucked.
Yes, that was my point. What do you think will happen if America is trying to help it's allies while it is bleeding out?
That is the point, genius. That wasn't about you specifically. It is a general problem in America. And the one's who think America must come first in any situation, are just mildly better. But of course tends to just be the politically aligned subset of the population of their own particular state. Woo.
> A lot of your argument seems to be rooted in idealism. I don't want my country to collapse because we were so arrogant to think we could save everyone.
Strawman
> Yes, that was my point. What do you think will happen if America is trying to help it's allies while it is bleeding out?
America is not bleeding out
This is not a problem and it's not exclusive to America. It's human nature for concern to be correlated to social proximity. Not sure what your issue is to be honest but it appears you just have an issue with anyone who doesn't care about the things you appear to.
> genius
Thank you
> Strawman
Maybe learn what that means if you're going to use it
> America is not bleeding out
I can see you are detatched from the reality your average American is living