Untitled topic • Hacker News Board

Re: undefined

#41

Post by argonaut » Wed, Jan 11, 2017, 11:45 PM UTC

ensignavenger wrote: post #22

kafkaesq wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has he made some admission I haven't heard about? What he says on the tape (in conjunction with perfectly credible statements from multiple witnesses) tells you everything you need to know. And BTW, the standard shouldn't be whether he's been criminally convicted or not; but "preponderance of evidence". As in the, you know, rational, pragmatic "Would you even consider (for so much as half a second) hiring someone who…

Well, I certainly didn't vote for him. But by your standard of evidence, I would have to say that we already elected someone that is just as much "confirmed serial sexual predator" who served as President for 8 years. In fact, the evidence against them is much stronger. Said former President was repeatedly defended by Trumps primary former rival for the position... so what choice did Americans really have? In the end…

The evidence of Bill's sexual harassment is actually much thinner, since there is no tape or anything except several women's accusations (his confirmed affairs are a different matter - they were consensual and Trump also had plenty of affairs and these weren't the issue). And in one case there are several other people who testify against that woman.

Preponderance of evidence is there is a greater than 50% chance of it being true. One person's word against another never meets that standard.

Broaddrick denied her accusations in an affidavit, and later retracted that denial. That destroys her credibility.

Edit: The only legit accusation is Paula Jones's, since Bill settled that case. Regardless, this is Bill Clinton. There is no evidence Hillary attacked Paula.

Re: undefined

#42

Post by djrogers » Wed, Jan 11, 2017, 11:45 PM UTC

shaldengeki wrote: post #29

KanyeBest wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention that most of the quotes are clearly taken out of context. Making any kind of judgment based on them is a shot in the dark.

Can you explain which quotes are taken out of context, and in what context they are best interpreted? I'd love to understand.

Those quotes were preceded by, and intended to emphasize this statement: -- "Mr. Thiel shows, again and again, how he likes to “flip around” issues to see if conventional wisdom is wrong, a technique he calls Pyrrhonian skepticism.

“Maybe I do always have this background program running where I’m trying to think of, ‘O.K., what’s the opposite of what you’re saying?’ and then I’ll try that,” he says. “It works surprisingly often.” " -- That clearly provides more context in that Theil was trying to demonstrate his contrarian mindset.

Re: undefined

#43

Post by Thriptic » Wed, Jan 11, 2017, 11:45 PM UTC

cderwin wrote: post #40

Thriptic wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Expertise is generally pretty narrow. For instance, I heard him speak about bio and pharma about half a year ago and he made several statements that were categorically incorrect and poorly reasoned through.

This sounds like evidence that his knowledge is wide, not narrow

It's evidence that he's willing to talk about a wide range of topics, not that he has great knowledge in those areas.

Re: undefined

#44

Post by cderwin » Wed, Jan 11, 2017, 11:47 PM UTC

ianai wrote: post #16

blizkreeg wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

he's a contrarian. you're never going to get anything that makes sense. it's a way of life.

Yes but being contrary for the sake of contrarianism is anarchy. I got the impression he wanted no information to be given out there. I still have no idea what he wants. His reasoning and method of thought, though, lead me to suspect he may want some technological innovations at any cost. Or, he may be incredibly shortsighted about Trump. Or just out for chaos. The contrarian thing may have been a rhetorical tactic t…

He can be entirely and uniformly contrarian throughout his entire life without being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. We have no idea beyond wild guesses why he is contrarian.

Re: undefined

#45

Post by kafkaesq » Wed, Jan 11, 2017, 11:47 PM UTC

ensignavenger wrote: post #22

kafkaesq wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has he made some admission I haven't heard about? What he says on the tape (in conjunction with perfectly credible statements from multiple witnesses) tells you everything you need to know. And BTW, the standard shouldn't be whether he's been criminally convicted or not; but "preponderance of evidence". As in the, you know, rational, pragmatic "Would you even consider (for so much as half a second) hiring someone who…

Well, I certainly didn't vote for him. But by your standard of evidence, I would have to say that we already elected someone that is just as much "confirmed serial sexual predator" who served as President for 8 years. In fact, the evidence against them is much stronger. Said former President was repeatedly defended by Trumps primary former rival for the position... so what choice did Americans really have? In the end…

All basically true and valid, as far as Clinton's behavior is concerned.

However, it's also a completely immaterial to the subject of Donald Trump's behavior. And and to the subject of FB board member, and YC advisor Peter Thiel's attempt to obfuscate and normalize that "behavior" (i.e. sexual violence) -- even more so.

Re: undefined

#46

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Jan 11, 2017, 11:49 PM UTC

shaldengeki wrote: post #34

argonaut wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dislike his views, but one thing Thiel is most certainly not is misinformed. His interpretations may be completely wrong, but he is not misinformed. I recall an interview of Marc Andreessen where Marc said he had to do a ton of preparation just to stand toe to toe in a debate with Thiel. If you believe that, then look for other explanations for his oddball statements. The contrarian angle seems like the right one -…

This is what surprises me about the interview. I was under the impression that, given his interest in politics, he was pretty well-informed. But his answers here are consistent with someone who knows very little about the topics he's being asked about, but has a bit of experience arguing with other people ("I'm going to answer your question with another question"). edit: And I'd love to believe the contrarian thing,…

Being informed isn't a passive state, but an active one. One of the dangers of getting a reputation for being knowledgeable is that it creates the risk of buying into your own mythology and slacking on the activity on which the reputation was built.

Coupled with the fact that knowledge is often much narrower and more domain-specific than the reputation for knowledge that it produces, and it's quite easy for someone who has, due to time and energy invested in one domain (plus generally-applicable rhetorical skill), built a well-justified reputation for knowledge to end up turning out to be quite ill-informed (if still rhetorically skilled) in other domains in which they have an interest and choose to be an active pontificator.

Re: undefined

#47

Post by KanyeBest » Wed, Jan 11, 2017, 11:50 PM UTC

shaldengeki wrote: post #29

KanyeBest wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention that most of the quotes are clearly taken out of context. Making any kind of judgment based on them is a shot in the dark.

Can you explain which quotes are taken out of context, and in what context they are best interpreted? I'd love to understand.

“But there’s a point where no corruption can be a bad thing. It can mean that things are too boring.”

No journalist would just change topic after hearing this. It's a very controversial and ambiguous statement, and Thiel must have elaborated a great deal on it. But there is no further mention of any of that in the article.

Re: undefined

#48

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Jan 11, 2017, 11:50 PM UTC

cderwin wrote: post #44

ianai wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but being contrary for the sake of contrarianism is anarchy. I got the impression he wanted no information to be given out there. I still have no idea what he wants. His reasoning and method of thought, though, lead me to suspect he may want some technological innovations at any cost. Or, he may be incredibly shortsighted about Trump. Or just out for chaos. The contrarian thing may have been a rhetorical tactic t…

He can be entirely and uniformly contrarian throughout his entire life without being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. We have no idea beyond wild guesses why he is contrarian.

Being contrarian is being contrary for the sake of being contrary.

Re: undefined

#49

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Jan 11, 2017, 11:52 PM UTC

cderwin wrote: post #40

Thriptic wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Expertise is generally pretty narrow. For instance, I heard him speak about bio and pharma about half a year ago and he made several statements that were categorically incorrect and poorly reasoned through.

This sounds like evidence that his knowledge is wide, not narrow

No, making statements outside of his primary domain that are categorically incorrect isn't a sign of broad knowledge. It may be a sign that he thinks his knowledge is broad when it isn't, but there are other explanations.

Re: undefined

#50

Post by shaldengeki » Wed, Jan 11, 2017, 11:53 PM UTC

djrogers wrote: post #42

shaldengeki wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain which quotes are taken out of context, and in what context they are best interpreted? I'd love to understand.

Those quotes were preceded by, and intended to emphasize this statement: -- "Mr. Thiel shows, again and again, how he likes to “flip around” issues to see if conventional wisdom is wrong, a technique he calls Pyrrhonian skepticism. “Maybe I do always have this background program running where I’m trying to think of, ‘O.K., what’s the opposite of what you’re saying?’ and then I’ll try that,” he says. “It works surpris…

Ah, yeah -- I debated putting these two paragraphs into the quote, but figured my post was getting a bit long in the tooth :)

How does this mindset influence your interpretation of his statement that a nonzero amount of corruption is good because otherwise things are "too boring"? To me, the preceding paragraphs seem to only confuse his intent -- it makes it sound like he could either be not taking the conversation seriously, or saying that he really does think that some corruption is a good thing.