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

The Strange Politics of Peter Thiel, Trump’s Most Unlikely Supporter

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 186 posts

Re: The Strange Politics of Peter Thiel, Trump’s Most Unlikely Supporter

#171

Post by stcredzero »

kafkaesq wrote: post #85
GuiA wrote: post #34

The Diversity Myth, a 1995 book [Thiel] co-wrote with David O. Sacks, railed against multiculturalism, which, they wrote, “exists to destroy Western culture.” What is up with all these people lately thinking that Western culture is some form of homogeneous block that's been unadultered for millennia and has recently come under "multiculturalist" attack? Especially coming from the US, a country that didn't exist when…

Same idea, basically, as with Putin's view that the values of modern Western societies are intrinsically hostile towards "Russian" and Eastern Orthodox values; the stance taken by generations of nationalist and autocratic leaders in Turkey that the state must protect itself against "insults to Turkishness" (and most diligently); or the belief among American conservatives that they must be ever-vigilant in their defen…

Same idea, basically, as with Putin's view that the values of modern Western societies are intrinsically hostile towards "Russian" and Eastern Orthodox values

I'm with Stratfor's analysis of this animosity: It's largely geographic.

And let's of course not forget the hard-core Islamists obsessed with the idea that Western music, Western culture, Western everything are intrinsic threats to the sacrosanct purity of "Islamic values".

Most often, they are intrinsic threats to their particular version of "Islamic values." They're also intrinsic threats to certain versions of "Christian values." Basically, any theocratic dogma is threatened.

You can flip this on it's head, and it becomes obvious. Any theocratic dogma that's against the realignment of their religion with modern humanist values is obviously intrinsically threatened.

Re: The Strange Politics of Peter Thiel, Trump’s Most Unlikely Supporter

#172

Post by winter_blue »

Houshalter wrote: post #125
vkou wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It had everything to do with race. The thing is, Irish were not considered white! They were sub-human, ape-like, violent alcoholics. Many English viewed them as such, and brought that viewpoint with them to the US. ... Racism doesn't have to make sense. And 1 in 8 is super-low for a settler nation. It's also only slightly higher then the average European state.

Perhaps, but my point is that residents of a country will always oppose immigrant groups, regardless of their origin. It's not necessarily racism. I know people who oppose immigrants. They don't believe hispanics are an inferior race or anything like that. They are mainly concerned about American jobs being taken by the immigrants. You can't use "racism" as a fully general insult against anyone that disagrees with yo…

> residents of a country will always oppose immigrant groups

This is pile of nonsense. The elected representatives from the Democratic Party don't show hate towards immigrants and have generally fought their betterment, and the Democratic Party won the popular vote in 1992, 1996, 2000, 2008, and 2012. That's five out the last six elections.

There was a huge amount of European immigration in the 1800s , and the early 1900s. Just as there was anti-Irish sentiment, I'm sure there were people back then who believed deeply in the Lump of Labor Fallacy[1], but their will was never put into effect as law.

If people freaking out about jobs had put the same limits we have on immigration today back in 1800, the U.S. population would likely be the same as Canada's, and our total GDP less than one-tenth of what it is today. We probably also wouldn't have had the economic might to win World War I and World War II, or the Cold War (e.g. Marshall Plan[2]).

Instead it was white-on-white racism, and the Nordic/Aryan supremacy[3] theories of Madison Grant[4] that actually led to the first major immigration restriction legislation in the U.S., the Emergency Quota Act[5] and the Immigration Act of 1924[6], which limited immigration to people from North-Western Europe, as a majority of the Congressmen back then believed that Southern and Eastern Europeans were a lower, less worthy breed of people.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Passing_of_the_Great_Race

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madison_Grant

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Quota_Act

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924

Re: The Strange Politics of Peter Thiel, Trump’s Most Unlikely Supporter

#173

Post by ceejayoz »

DefaultUserHN wrote: post #162
ceejayoz wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Enforcing the obligation means NATO doesn't exist. Only the US and Estonia would be left. Advocating for them to meet the pledge is one thing, but refusing to defend them under the treaty because of it would be catastrophic. http://www.businessinsider.com/only-us-and-estonia-meeting-n...

But people hate it when the United States police the world. Why should the United States holds its end of the deal and defends those if they don't hold their end of the deal? People want the United States to stop policing the world. Well, under Trump, the United States will stop policing the world. Isn't that what people want?

People hate it when the US doesn't, too. I don't think a world without NATO is likely to make many in the West all that happy.

Re: The Strange Politics of Peter Thiel, Trump’s Most Unlikely Supporter

#174

Post by gallonofmilk »

diyorgasms wrote: post #152
gallonofmilk wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ssh logic not welcome here... move along

I would assume ssh and its underlying logic are welcome here. What I assume is unwelcome is advocating religious tests in a secular state.

what if instead of saying "Muslims coming from location X", it were "people coming from location X"?

the issue is the same, we don't know how to properly vet these people, nor do we know if they want to assimilate (big problem if they don't)... personally I think given the world we live in, that is logical. I also don't think it should be permanent and we should encourage those that want to join America and all it has to offer so long as we can do our best to ensure their sincerity...

Re: The Strange Politics of Peter Thiel, Trump’s Most Unlikely Supporter

#175

Post by internaut »

vkou wrote: post #122
Houshalter wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1 in 8 residents being immigrants is not super low. The rate of immigrants per year is irrelevant, as it adds up a lot over time. I guarantee that people would complain if the immigrants were European. Because they did in the past! In the past a huge number of immigrants were from Ireland and other countries, and there was lots of hatred and anti immigration movements. It has literally nothing to do with race. People…

It had everything to do with race. The thing is, Irish were not considered white! They were sub-human, ape-like, violent alcoholics. Many English viewed them as such, and brought that viewpoint with them to the US. ... Racism doesn't have to make sense. And 1 in 8 is super-low for a settler nation. It's also only slightly higher then the average European state.

Historically the stereotype of the Irish as being less educated, violent (esp. domestic violence) and alcoholic is accurate.

I say that as an Irish person. We've made considerable progress since in the late 20th century to the present, and now we are better in most metrics than the British (and perhaps they have also fallen), but don't imagine we were all sweetness and light in the past. Present day Irish have undergone a terrific cultural shift, evidence of which would be a supposed Catholic majority country voting in gay marriage.

We're still Irish, but we're mostly better than we were. Now if we could only resuscitate the courage of our grandparents we'd be in better shape yet.

Re: The Strange Politics of Peter Thiel, Trump’s Most Unlikely Supporter

#176

Post by internaut »

boona wrote: post #100
vasilipupkin wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

for example, if it's indeed true that Peter Thiel is skeptical of women's suffrage, then I think it is reasonable to conclude that he is probably at least to some extent an idiot and we should view his actions at least partially through that prism

I would love to hear WHY he's skeptical. I'm sure he's heard all the traditional arguments like we have, which means he has additional information that I don't. Don't you think it's more intellectually honest to question and hear what others have to say rather than just paint them as idiots because they don't believe what you believe.

> I would love to hear WHY he's skeptical. I'm sure he's heard all the traditional arguments like we have, which means he has additional information that I don't.

It is to do with social programs and taxes.

Libertarians are overwhelmingly white and male. Why this would be the case is interesting, it might be biology at work but let's stay on point.

Women are overwhelmingly not libertarian.

Therefore if 50% of the voters are in favour of social building programs then that is what government policy will enforce, forever, in a democracy. Whether this is morally/fiscally right or wrong is beside the point.

Bluntly that women can vote means libertarian policies are impossible unless large numbers of women decide to become libertarians. You can be the judge of whether this is fair or not.

Re: The Strange Politics of Peter Thiel, Trump’s Most Unlikely Supporter

#177

Post by JabavuAdams »

oldmanjay wrote: post #128
somebehemoth wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on..." How does one misinterpret this message to be racist when it is so blatantly racist in and of itself? "Throwing the racist card has been a pretty effective tactic for the left over the past 8 years..." With all of the dark skinned people getting kil…

Since there isn't even a Muslim race, all these claims of racism just seem to me like desperate heavings from people who hate dictionaries and love manipulating emotions. Also, your last sentence effectively means "since racism is a thing, all accusations of racism are valid" which is almost offensively wrong.

This is a very weak argument that I see too frequently. Simply replace the word "racist" with the word "bigoted". It's no better to be a bigot than to be a racist so the complaint still stands.

Re: The Strange Politics of Peter Thiel, Trump’s Most Unlikely Supporter

#178

Post by JabavuAdams »

choko wrote: post #131
somebehemoth wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on..." How does one misinterpret this message to be racist when it is so blatantly racist in and of itself? "Throwing the racist card has been a pretty effective tactic for the left over the past 8 years..." With all of the dark skinned people getting kil…

>How does one misinterpret this message to be racist when it is so blatantly racist in and of itself? While I do agree that banning Muslims from entering the country is a horrible idea, Muslim is a religion (and a choice), not a race. For what it's worth, Mexican is also not a race. >With all of the dark skinned people getting killed by police lately it seems more likely that the US has a huge problem with racism. I…

If this is the way you think about these problems you're ignoring thousands of years of historical evidence. The very nature of institutionalized racism is that it's largely invisible to those not directly affected.

Don't hold the victims to a higher standard of evidence then the perpetrators, when the perpetrators hold all the cards.

Re: The Strange Politics of Peter Thiel, Trump’s Most Unlikely Supporter

#179

Post by tim333 »

patrickburke wrote: post #154
xorcist wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm interested in what that would be. From a northern European perspective, we have strong cultural ties to the US (given that we were part of the whole colonization thing). Yet there are politicians there that question women's rights to abortions quite seriously, argue from the basis of religious rather than scientific conviction, oppose music and art and vaccinations and climate science on the same grounds that I f…

In a conversation about the death of the west, you express shock that there remains some vestige of Christian morality, and without a hint of irony.

It's interesting that the things from xorcist's post that I think you are calling vestige of Christian morality - being anti abortion, music, art, vaccinations and science - have almost nothing to do with the teachings of Christ or much to do with morality. I'm not sure how you'd categorise those - perhaps a witch doctor style veneration of mumbo jumbo over reason for political purposes. Kind of, you must believe my smoke and bones cure all or you are an evil heretic, type stuff.

Re: The Strange Politics of Peter Thiel, Trump’s Most Unlikely Supporter

#180

Post by JabavuAdams »

boona wrote: post #145
metheus wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shall we extend the same curtesy to those who oppose other forms of universal suffrage? > I'm sure he's heard all the traditional arguments like we have, which means he has additional information that I don't. It means nothing of the kind. Occam's razor suggests, rather, that he reasons differently than you (or at least me). > Don't you think it's more intellectually honest to question and hear what others have to sa…

>we have an arrogant economic royalist lamenting the consequences of women having a political voice ... but equally clear that he has no novel, reasonable justification for disenfranchising women. Hilarious! This is exactly what I'm talking about! You have no idea how he got to his position, but you've already made up your mind as to how he got there. And to top it off, you go on this big rant that places you above h…

^ And this is why the intellectually honest always lose. Sometimes a troll is just a troll. Sometimes a genius is just self-interested.
Post reply on HN