Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is Trump mulling Peter Thiel for a top intelligence advisory post?

vanityfair.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 172 posts

Re: Is Trump mulling Peter Thiel for a top intelligence advisory post?

#61

Post by pryce »

belorn wrote: post #45
pryce wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I refer you Thiel's multiple published articles on multiculturalism during his time at Stanford for the journal 'Academic Questions', such as 'Multiculturalism and the decline of Stanford', followed by the book he co-authored called "the Diversity Myth", about how multiculturalism is horrific and how multiculturalism exists to destroy white culture, are where you should look if you wish to get a good idea of what is…

Is anyone who prefer cultural globalisation over multiculturalism a white supremacist?

Of course not. But Thiel didn't write a book simply expressing a preference against multiculturalism, he wrote a book claiming that multiculturalism exists to destroy white culture.

'White culture is under threat' is a core belief of white supremacists.

Re: Is Trump mulling Peter Thiel for a top intelligence advisory post?

#62

Post by KVFinn »

elefanten wrote: post #50
Turing_Machine wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I find an explicit campaign contribution to be considerably less sleazy than paying a politician hundreds of thousands of dollars for "making a speech" (a very popular ruse with the Clintons, and now Obama). Less sleazy in that campaign funds have to be accounted for (i.e., actually spent on the campaign, or retained for a future campaign) while "speaking fees" can be spent any way you want.

False equivalence. Campaign contributions and personal income are separate categories. It might feel unsavory that those speeches are indeed personal income for the long list of politicians, from both left and right, who have engaged in that practice. But those events aren't about buying influence, they're about rich wankers feeling special because they get to hear some bullshit commencement address from important pe…

>It might feel unsavory that those speeches are indeed personal income for the long list of politicians, from both left and right, who have engaged in that practice. But those events aren't about buying influence, they're about rich wankers feeling special because they get to hear some bullshit commencement address from important people behind closed doors.

Also about the fact that people are more likely to sign over millions of dollars in accounts to be managed after they are hanging out in the glow after shaking the hands of somebody they admire. The bank hires Neil Degrasse Tyson or any other celebrity for the same reason. They make money even after spending hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Re: Is Trump mulling Peter Thiel for a top intelligence advisory post?

#63

Post by thirdsun »

xiaoma wrote: post #56

This article is exactly as objective and as "inciteful" as one would expect given the source. Gizmodo's parent company, Gawker, outed Thiel for being gay and he later helped fund a lawsuit someone else brought against them (for taking and publishing a recording of a private sexual encounter). That lawsuit put Gawker out of business.

I recommend the documentary "Nobody Speak" on Netflix for an overview of how the lawsuit unfolded and why it's so problematic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHow1B32WZw

Re: Is Trump mulling Peter Thiel for a top intelligence advisory post?

#64

Post by masklinn »

olalonde wrote: post #53
gnaritas wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We call what the founders described a representative democracy, whether they used the word or not isn't relevant as what they meant by democracy is more aptly called direct democracy today. You are objecting to the use of a term because you aren't using the term in the modern way, and that's a silly semantic debate. The United States is a democracy according to the modern use of the word, please just accept it and st…

I think parent's point was simply that being critical of democracy does not automatically make you a "neo-feudalist". For example, countries with a strong constitution like the USA have a more constrained democratic process.

> I think parent's point was simply that being critical of democracy does not automatically make you a "neo-feudalist".

alphonsegaston's point is the exact opposite.

Re: Is Trump mulling Peter Thiel for a top intelligence advisory post?

#65

Post by pryce »

remarkEon wrote: post #26
confounded wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- He believes that capitalism and democracy are incompatible. - He is strongly opposed to multiculturalism, and attributes many evils to it. Though when put under pressure to justify some of the views he published in his book on the subject (such as that women reporting rape is an organized leftist conspiracy to undermine white men), he simply said he never thought them. Genius! - He promotes political figures on the…

On your first point, that doesn't seem like an idea unique to the Far Right at all. Plenty of Left Wing friends of mine don't think Capitalism works within a Democracy (though I'm sure for different reasons than Thiel). On your second, I think the virtue of Multiculturalism is at least worth debating. If he calls it "evil" that's not something I'd agree with, but that would align with a lot of Far Right thought. As f…

It isn't that Thiel thinks 'Capitalism and Democracy are incompatible' that makes him right-wing, it is that given he believes they are incompatible, he concludes Democracy should be discarded to preserve Capitalism, rather than the other way around. This is a far-right view.

Re: Is Trump mulling Peter Thiel for a top intelligence advisory post?

#67

Post by indubitable »

aaroninsf wrote: post #46
jules wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thiel is hardly alone in this view. Many libertarians are in favour of a constitutional republic over a democracy where 51% of the people have absolute power.

Precisely. Because 51% affords far too much voice for the rabble. Relevant: http://dalependell.com/essays/remembering-the-regulation-cal...

Studies [1] on this question show exactly the opposite. The view of the majority of the population shows no meaningful impact on the policies that our government actually chooses to adopt. The interests of "economic elites" (to use the phrasing of the paper) do tend to be predictive of what passes. Their 'disinterests' tend to be very strongly predictive of what does not pass. The study concludes that the US has already devolved into an oligarchy though "Americans [still] enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise."

On the other hand, I am always reluctant to link to social papers since data can be so easily massaged to affirm nearly any presupposed conclusion. Do you have any evidence or logic to support your view that the masses have any substantive and, more importantly, lasting effect on policy? I do not think it's self evident that the masses are having any direct effect on the current themes of net neutrality and PIPA/SOPA/CISPA/CISA. The apparent effect seems more due to the fact that very influential "economic elites" are themselves divided on the issues.

[1] - http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materi...

Re: Is Trump mulling Peter Thiel for a top intelligence advisory post?

#68

Post by iand »

KGIII wrote: post #47
SapphireSun wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would it be fair to say that US libertarians are anarcho-capitalists while the leftist libertarians are anarcho-syndicalists?

Not really, no. Libertarian is, on the political compass, the opposite of authoritarian. As such, there's actually a whole spectrum of beliefs. Anarchists believe in no laws. Libertarians believe in increased liberty for the individual. This can be manifest as a reduction of laws, it may be as extreme as a desire for anarchy. Libertarian really is (was?) about increasing and protecting the individual liberties, maxim…

> Anarchists believe in no laws.

This is incorrect. Anarchists believe in no rulers. Laws can be agreed between consenting parties.

Re: Is Trump mulling Peter Thiel for a top intelligence advisory post?

#69

Post by 0xbear »

KGIII wrote: post #57
0xbear wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ayn Rand was not an idiot. You just misunderstood what her book was, as did many other people who have never lived under a communist regime. I have lived under a communist regime, and I remember it well, so I can tell you that her book is basically a fantasy world diameterally opposed to communism, or to be exact the form of it that the Soviet Union was aiming for. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yes, a fantasy world. A world which isn't going to exist, presented as a serious topic. Maybe idiot was too strong a word, but it was shorter than the alternatives. If she'd left it as a work of fantasy, and not encouraged adoption, I'd be less inclined to be disrespectful. However, she gave many talks on the subject and pushed her views as serious political philosophy. This was adopted by others and has pretty much…

Sure, she wasn’t one to turn down an easy buck and a bit of fame. Can you fault her?

Libertarianism was never viable. It goes against human nature, just in the opposite direction from communism. Communism postulates that lazy people deserve everything (“to each according to his need”), so the wealthy and aspiring hate it. Libertarianism postulates they deserve nothing (“taxation is theft”) so the poor hate it. The gray reality is somewhere in between. The underlying truth of the situation is that when the poor have nothing to eat, they eat the rich, and moral absolutes do not help either side.

Re: Is Trump mulling Peter Thiel for a top intelligence advisory post?

#70

Post by urlwolf »

You can read this the following way. The 'analogs', represented by Trump, realize they are losing power, that regulation may be their best shot even if that has proven to not work well, and are launching a full-force attack against the 'digitals' (eg Valley).

This event is more meaningful for the world economy and safety than North Korea playing with nuclear weapons. The sides of a possible WW III are analogs vs digitals.

What do you think? I'm thinking about writing a blog post expanding on the idea.

Post reply on HN