Hacker News Reader

Comment by antonvs | Hacker News Reader

> Most of what people call morality is just their own feelings or interest or some attempt to protect their ego, it's basically just an expression of narcissism.

Oh good grief. Hot take of the month right there. All you're doing is demonstrating how uninformed you are on the subject. Can you name anything you've ever read about this?

> [Thiel] displays a lot of humility in his speech and conduct.

You can't be serious. Where in this does the talk of the "Antichrist" fit?

What kind of humility are you talking about? Because if it means intellectual modesty, willingness to acknowledge one's own fallibility, or reluctance to cast one's own political/intellectual beliefs as uniquely farsighted, Thiel's public record is not consist with "displaying a lot of humility."

View on HN

The reason you call Thiel immoral or psychopathic is because he's wealthy and this evokes jealousy in you, it's a threat to your ego and your own sense of self worth.

It's really that simple and this is a good illustration of what I'm talking about.

No, Thiel is immoral because he is funding a panopticon and wants to get rid of democracy in favor of authoritarianism. It's really that simple, and your blindness to his cartoonish level of villainy is a good illustration of what everyone who is pushing back against you is talking about.

People who say they are against panopticons and for democracy are universally fine with subjecting their political enemies to panopticons and only for democracy when their side wins.

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"

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.

> 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

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.

>This is why these types of things are better left to elite minded people who are capable of these types of discussions.

fred sanford noises WE ALL GONNA DIE

Reply on news.ycombinator.com