111–120 of 281 posts
I mean, they have a point. But considering they run a whole journal on literal communism, it’s hard to take them seriously. The message falls flat when it comes from a different flavor of dangerous fantasy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition...There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One side is metastasising in the US government right now, the other has been long dead. "it's the same because they're both bad" ok...
It's not been long dead. There's a communist who's just been elected to Mayer of New York.
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 :).
I've said this about celebrities for two decades now. Most people don't care though; they love the gossip, I guess.
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 :).
Sorry, but that take is complete garbage. Wanting to “collectively figure out how to take away the microphone” from rich people you dislike isn’t a brave stance against inequality, it’s straight-up authoritarian censorship based on net worth. In a free society, people choose who gets attention. If you don’t like Thiel, out-argue him or ignore him, but don’t fantasize about silencing citizens because they’re successfu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Jacobin is not a whole journal on literal communism. It’s a magazine with a professed socialist view point but it’s more aligned with left-of-center American politics. Think Sanders or Mamdani rather than Stalin or Mao. > Sanders or Mamdani Sanders and Mamdani are about as far left of center as one can get at the moment, such that they almost meld into Stalin or Mao. The mental gymnastics you’re doing to blunt that…
> such that they almost meld into Stalin or Mao. ... Oh, come on now. I can't tell whether you're extremely confused about Sanders and Mamdani, or extremely confused about Stalin and Mao. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/25/bernie-sande... would have gone very differently if Sanders was Mao, for a start.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. It’s a no-kidding literary tool used throughout history.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, but that take is complete garbage. Wanting to “collectively figure out how to take away the microphone” from rich people you dislike isn’t a brave stance against inequality, it’s straight-up authoritarian censorship based on net worth. In a free society, people choose who gets attention. If you don’t like Thiel, out-argue him or ignore him, but don’t fantasize about silencing citizens because they’re successfu…
> If you don’t like Thiel, out-argue him or ignore him Kind of hard to do this when he has so much money to buy influence anywhere. An example is how the current vice president of the United States is a protege of the guy.
But scroll this comment section for any critique of Thiel and you’ll see the pattern: his wealth gets attacked, his actual ideas almost never do.
Take the “Antichrist Thesis” everyone mocks. It’s Rene Girard-speak for centralized, charismatic authoritarianism that weaponizes morality and scapegoating to grab power. Think Sam Altman preaching about AGI danger while lobbying the gov for openai prioritizing and startup stifling policies. Fed government using big tech censorship for preventing hate speech. He’s been dead-on about that danger for decades.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the article's second sentence: "Thiel’s lurid, apocalyptic view of world politics may be ludicrous or even deranged, but his wealth and power mean that we can’t afford to ignore it."
Power might be hard to ignore, but wealth you literally just can.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree on the first part - I could not care any less about those insane superrich. But they use their money to influence people - this part is dangerous and must be stopped.
You mostly hear about their views from contrarian articles warning of the dangers of their views.
Thiel's ramblings seem so unhinged, delusions of grandeur. I am so thankful that I'm not rich enough to be surrounded by people who agree with every single half baked thought that I put out.
> I am so thankful that I'm not rich enough to be surrounded by people who agree with every single half baked thought that I put out Why not, it’s not as if you’d face any real consequences for your own reckless stupidity.