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

Peter Thiel's Apocalyptic Worldview Is a Dangerous Fantasy

jacobin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 281 posts

Re: Peter Thiel's Apocalyptic Worldview Is a Dangerous Fantasy

#211

Post by mindslight »

LogicFailsMe wrote: post #195
mindslight wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, I agree and I've made similar arguments. But there are still throngs of people self-identifying as conservative and considering Trump conservative. The best I've been able to surmise is that to them, "conservative" merely means in line with the reactionary talk radio of the past several decades, and that anger has replaced all of their ideals. This is kind of understandable, because that reactionary talk radio…

While I think one party started it back in the '90s, both parties are mostly 2-minute hate daily talking point driven at this point. I don't think that bodes well for our geopolitical competitiveness in the long run. And you can already see it in the irrational hatred of renewables on the right and the irrational hatred of AI on the left. Meanwhile, enough of the rest of the world has better things to do that we seem…

While the Democratic party has strongly embraced the 2-minute hate in much of their propaganda, I do not think the both sidesism is warranted. The point is that Republicans have taken their 2-minute hate dynamic of the past several decades, and retconned that anger as the entirety of their policy platform. Whereas Democratic leaders are still trying for constructive policies that abide by their own ideals. We can criticize those ideals, and criticize their policies for failing to live up to those ideals, yes. But their platform doesn't revolve around overtly harming the country with the idea that the other tribe will be harmed more.

As for the "irrational hatred" of "AI", isn't that what laying the groundwork for controlled opposition and regulatory capture looks like? There have been serious problems from lack of business accountability and responsiveness, now exacerbated by AI. But pigeonholing it all into an "AI bad" narrative is basically setting up to defeat any specific reforms.

Re: Peter Thiel's Apocalyptic Worldview Is a Dangerous Fantasy

#212

Post by pmdulaney »

lowkey_ wrote: post #160
nanfinitum wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes we can actually. I think it has something to do with Silicon Valley's obsession with money. To SV-people, billionaires are like gods. They are worshipped and invited to all the events worth going to (meetups, hackathons, etc.). Everyone wants to be like them. And it seems to me to be a geographical problem too. In NYC, billionaires are like supervillains. Nobody particularly likes them (outside of select finance…

> In NYC, billionaires are like supervillains. Nobody particularly likes them (outside of select finance bros), and people openly express disdain for them and their greed. I think you may be confusing 'power' or 'impact' with wealth in this take. Paul Graham wrote about this in a blog post [1]. In NYC, being rich is cool, even if you just inherited it all. Having lived 12 years in NYC, I agree wholeheartedly. It's wh…

It's getting harder and harder to even hazard a guess as to why a comment on HN gets downvoted. Is Paul Graham becoming persona non grata? Is that it?

Re: Peter Thiel's Apocalyptic Worldview Is a Dangerous Fantasy

#213

Post by strictlymomo »

SimianSci wrote: post #87
fastball wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Power might be hard to ignore, but wealth you literally just can.

Wealth is allowing people to buy consent for their worldviews these days. this is an incredibly naiive take.

When you say “these days,” you mean the past 10,000 years, right?

Power based on consent likely existed throughout the Holocene: “Big men” with their gift-giving and elaborate feasts, chiefdoms comprised of aristocratic lineages… the gameplan has always been to collect favors by promising future returns, religious blessings, and the like. You can see the parallels to present-day VC. These pre-historic admin dudes emerged alongside the steepening wealth inequality gradients and population growths of agrarian societies.

Comforting to know their influence is limited and precarious, as the social following can always fragment. This is what anthropologists call segmentary structures. More interesting, if severely depressing, is the theory that power based on consent is arguably the precondition for scaling social cohesion beyond kin and villages to cities and civilizations, thereby serving as the foundation for more durable power structures.

Re: Peter Thiel's Apocalyptic Worldview Is a Dangerous Fantasy

#214

Post by sifar »

mushufasa wrote: post #129
jmathai wrote: post #13

Maybe slightly off topic to the article, but I don't really care what Peter Thiel has to say. I do think we need to collectively think about how to not give these people a microphone. It's one thing to have concentrated wealth. It's a very different thing to have concentrated wealth and people's attention. I think that's a much more interesting discussion :).

Fundamentally money can buy a microphone (including literally). That said, buying airtime/ads does is not sufficient to create traction with your ideas. I have worked at plenty of foundations that spend a lot of money to "raise awareness" on various issues, which ultimately goes nowhere. IMHO the zany, outlandish claims by Thiel, are gaining attention because of their inherent shock-value. I sent a text to my girlfri…

What I have come to realize is that, at a societal level, no amount of rational discourse will counter the fear/emotional response. If it were, the world wouldnt' be in the state it is today.

Only time, reality shock or meeting a proportionate external force are the antidote. And even these can be stretched via the constant propaganda drip.

There is a great Charles Mackay quote applicable here: "Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one."

Re: Peter Thiel's Apocalyptic Worldview Is a Dangerous Fantasy

#215

Post by Uhhrrr »

smallnix wrote: post #156
Uhhrrr wrote: post #149

To me this piece just looks like someone who hates wealth and willfully misunderstands metaphors.

I recommend to read the source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/oct/10/peter-thiel-...

This supports my initial reaction. The "antichrist" indicators he points to are things like authoritarianism and homogenization, not burning bushes and bints with swords.

Re: Peter Thiel's Apocalyptic Worldview Is a Dangerous Fantasy

#216

Post by jhbadger »

palmotea wrote: post #179
yoyohello13 wrote: post #52

I would have never believed it 10 years ago. I actually think there is a high probability the world will be ended, not by war or natural disaster, but by an honest to god trillionaire super villain. The ultra wealthy are an actual existential threat to humanity. No one can be trusted with that much money and power.

> I would have never believed it 10 years ago. I actually think there is a high probability the world will be ended, not by war or natural disaster, but by an honest to god trillionaire super villain. IMHO, that's the obvious end-state of AGI: the economy eats the world and a few trillionaires sitting atop AGI armies control the economy, and nearly everyone else becomes powerless, irrelevent, and eventually "ended."

The problem with that dystopia is how those people would remain rich if nobody below them could afford their products. Henry Ford was a terrible person in many ways, but his idea of paying his auto workers decently so they could afford to buy the Model T's they were building was not only good for the workers but smart business.

Re: Peter Thiel's Apocalyptic Worldview Is a Dangerous Fantasy

#217

Post by [deleted] »

jhbadger wrote: post #216
palmotea wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would have never believed it 10 years ago. I actually think there is a high probability the world will be ended, not by war or natural disaster, but by an honest to god trillionaire super villain. IMHO, that's the obvious end-state of AGI: the economy eats the world and a few trillionaires sitting atop AGI armies control the economy, and nearly everyone else becomes powerless, irrelevent, and eventually "ended."

The problem with that dystopia is how those people would remain rich if nobody below them could afford their products. Henry Ford was a terrible person in many ways, but his idea of paying his auto workers decently so they could afford to buy the Model T's they were building was not only good for the workers but smart business.

[deleted]

Re: Peter Thiel's Apocalyptic Worldview Is a Dangerous Fantasy

#219

Post by micromacrofoot »

MiiMe19 wrote: post #175
hearsathought wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure why people keep bringing this up. Every ideology has blood on their hands, but communism is nowhere near #1. Try comparing the death tolls/genocides/etc of the capitalist/anti-communist side with the communist side.

Communism and its associated pairings have killed far more than capitalism ever will. Communism only ever exists when paired with an authoritarian government and cannot exist without one. Capitalism can (and does) exist without an authoritarian government. There is a reason why the only people that defend communism have never lived under it.

capitalism is great just don't ask the natives about it

Re: Peter Thiel's Apocalyptic Worldview Is a Dangerous Fantasy

#220

Post by snapdeficit »

LogicFailsMe wrote: post #131
seattle_spring wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's no point misrepresenting a political stance. Well, there is a point, but it's malicious. Interesting perspective, considering that you said this only 5 minutes later in this same post: > There's a communist who's just been elected to Mayer of New York.

The weird part isn't that a socialist got elected mayor of New York. The weird part is that the Democratic party didn't have anyone better to primary him out of the nomination. The two-party system seems pretty cooked at this point.

Not a socialist. A democratic socialist.
Post reply on HN