Thiel comes from a place where he clearly understands the rationale & goals of the modern left's social wing wrt diversity. I want to agree with him that he's raising substantive issues. On the other hand, his whole piece has such a tone of arrogance that it's hard for me to get through. The obsession with "speaking truth to power" (the exact phrase & the concept behind it) feels so childish and seems to be something many people in the alt-right seem to have.
I do think he makes some interesting points, especially at a high level. His "economically reductionist line of questioning" is something I think about... what are the incentives behind DEI, especially since DEI programs at large haven't seemed to accomplished their goals. And his point about rent/people wanting to live in cities seems true, too. Despite rent being crazy in NY/SF, for many people, those are the only cities they'd consider moving to.
Thiel seems to conflate a valid criticism (he has many) with an invalidation of an idea.
His objections and anecdotes are all very instructive. There is nothing wrong with shedding light on the motivations of people and the incentives in play when it comes to any social construct. Some (many) of those things should be changed.
It's hard to see where his criticisms sum to any singular great point about something bad that is going on. If you want to be (economically) reductionist, there is nothing wrong with someone else being social maximalist. Is the total social good not better than all the reductionist arguments in sum? Some say yes, some say no.
He's smart. Here he's being smart about specific little things. However, I did not finish reading the article with the feeling that Peter Thiel had some greater holistic and informed point of view than any of the people and institutions he is railing against.
> One of my smarter liberal friends said, “Maybe it’s all true, but isn’t it kind of pornographic, Peter? You just give us a bunch of pornography here, and it doesn’t really change anything.”
This quote struck me. Journalists look for sins/dirt, why aren't they interested in this stuff happening all around (and involving powerful people)? I think they would give the same excuse.
But Journalists criticize others using a moral framework that is never articulated. My best guess is they dont really have one, it's whatever they think you will find offensive and further their social goals.
Do journalists even need a moral framework? All they need is readership.
I mean, doesn't that basically describe what happened to many of the Fox news anchors like Tucker? They knew they were spouting bullshit (and may not have liked it at first), but it got views...
I can't get over the fact that he attributed high rents in NYC and SF to.. Apparently the fact that gay people and women are too afraid to move anywhere else for fear of persecution?
Or that multiculturalism is responsible for growing inequality, because the trends emerged at roughly the same time (failing to note that that was also the timeframe of emergence for a kind of conservatism that fetishized corporations and abhorred regulations).
The whole thing is very painful to read, it’s so dumb. Not least because he very clearly sees himself as a Serious Person.
I personally find that some soft version of this idea rings very true. It feels like there's a big segment of the population that has inherited this assumption that they would hate living outside of the largest population centers.
Of course, everybody's living preferences are always being pushed around by this trend or that, so I'm not saying this situation is unprecedented. But this idea that most of the country is unlivable for progressives seems particularly widespread in its influence, and particularly ill-fitting for most people's actual preferences. I'd wager a lot of people are missing out on a lot of living options they'd actually love because they've unknowingly imported some pernicious memes.
Interesting that all your links never describe more than a single person or at most “15-20”. I have lived in Florida for more than four decades with family roots here going back to the 1930s…I can count on one hand with fingers leftover the number times I have encountered a “nazi”.
But hey, feel free to stay away if you think you are gonna be surrounded by those assholes. You won’t be of course, because despite what the media and others might claim, Florida is pretty damned diverse and a quick visit to pretty much anywhere here would reveal that.
Interesting that you think 15–20 Nazis (or, you know, people flying the Nazi flag) is acceptable or that any Nazis killing folks is somehow acceptable. But, you know, fair point about going back to the 30s as Florida has historically been klan country.
Oh look, the Klan's still nice and active in Florida.
Fair. You've got the klan, neo-nazis, moms for liberty, white lives matter, goyim defense league, natsoc florida, and of course the patriot front. That's pretty diverse.
Even if you were anywhere near correct, Florida is still being run by one man culture war. That shit desantis is pulling? That's not media hyperbole, that's not memes, they're the law of the land. Why would I want to put down roots somewhere that leads the nation in book banning? Or that looked at a shortage of teachers and thought that lowering (well, eliminating) standards was more appropriate than improving conditions?
Why would I set down roots somewhere where the government is trying to legislate the opposition party out of existence?
Let's not forget SB1718. I guess that wasn't really meant to be actionable? Just intended to keep the darkies in line?
I've gotta figure that the NAACP and HRC are onto something with their travel advisories, but then again I never did buy the "big bad media" myth that you're trying to sell.
Florida is an environment that's openly hostile to people who aren't white, heterosexual, christian men. Don't complain when people who aren't in that demographic avoid or leave Florida.
Nowhere did I say it was acceptable. I refered to them as idiots and assholes.
Also nowhere did I complain that people were leaving the state for that reason.
What I said, since you seem hell bent on a straw man argument tactic, was that the population of Florida was large and diverse and the number of neo-nazi assholes are so few that in 45 years of living here I have encountered maybe 3.
But hey your opinion so formed from apparently zero practical experience and only the political commentary and news commentary that you read should certainly keep you away. The growing intentional increase of population in the state, including quite ironically to this conversation, several of my non-white, non-Christian, non-male, and in one case, non-heterosexual remote working coworkers who could live literally anywhere…have chosen to disagree with your assessment of the diversity and friendly nature of the state.
The growing intentional increase of population in the state,
including quite ironically to this conversation, several of
my non-white, non-Christian, non-male, and in one case, non-
heterosexual remote working coworkers who could live
literally anywhere…have chosen to disagree with your
assessment of the diversity and friendly nature of the state.
So if the gays aren't avoiding Florida like Peter I-wanna-suck-your-blood Thiel is claiming, what are you complaining about?
This started with a reference to a small group of Nazi flag waving protesters outside Disney World and an assumption that that group represents the population of Florida. After ironically confirming my comment about the small sizes of these neo-Nazis here in Florida with your own links trying to disprove my point (that was a really weird debate tactic BTW), you have now decided to expand this nazi group to all sorts of people you don’t agree with. Yes, if you move to Florida you might encounter someone who holds a different viewpoint than you. I suspect that to be the case everywhere though.
Florida is diverse and growing. I am sorry that bothers you, feel free to not move here if you feel you would be unhappy, we could certainly use one less car on the road.
This started with a reference to a small group of Nazi flag waving protesters
outside Disney World and an assumption that that group represents the population
of Florida
And yet groups like the Anti Defamation League and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People are showing a rise in hate groups. Go figure.
confirming my comment about the small sizes of these neo-Nazis here in Florida
Time for you to get some perspective. What you consider to be a small group of Nazis and "people you don’t agree with" is far larger and more widespread than in for e.g. New York City. What you consider small is pretty damn large for anyone on the outside looking in.
you have now decided to expand this nazi group to all sorts of people you
don’t agree with
And there it is. That old chestnut. No. The klan is not simply a group that I "don't agree with." Gerrymandering voting districts to eliminate any black pluralities is not simply a disagreement it's an existential threat.
Florida is diverse and growing.
I'm not quite sure why you're harping on diversity. These diverse people that you seem to love to trot out are being persecuted. They're also leaving because of the persecution that you seem to think doesn't exist.
You really really like to straw man in a conversation, don’t you?
Stay focused on the original point. A small group of flag waving Nazis protested at Disney world and you were concerned about living amongst them. I conveyed my long experience that I have not encountered hardly any of those people in my decades of living here and that I found the state diverse with population that enjoys living here.
Your rant here simply does not change my lived experience.
Anybody who forms their opinion of any US state from papers like the Guardian UK instead of actually, you know, visiting the state in question usually results in people developing very stupid and ill-conceived impressions. It's as if there are a group of urbanites who form their impression of Florida entirely from Florida Man memes.
Anybody who forms their opinion of any US state from papers like the
Guardian UK instead of actually, you know, visiting the state in question
usually results in people developing very stupid and ill-conceived impressions.
It's as if there are a group of urbanites who form their impression of Florida
entirely from Florida Man memes.
How's that saying go? When you assume you make an ass out of you? Yeah. I've been to Florida. As far north as Jacksonville and as far south as Key West. It's almost as if you're trying to ignore the litany of hate groups that are festering in Florida because it doesn't fit your narrative.
But, here, have a couple more sources on the vile gerrymandering. Even the courts have pointed out how racist the desantis redistricting was. But, sure, hang your hat on your fear of the Guardian.
> It's almost as if you're trying to ignore the litany of hate groups that are festering in Florida because it doesn't fit your narrative.
It’s almost as if you are trying to ignore the litany of non-hate and wonderfully diverse groups of people living without issue and being a significant portion of the people in Florida because it doesn’t fit your narrative.
Had to point out that keeping pornographic and sexually explicit material out of school libraries is entirely within the reasonable realm of authority of school boards and has nothing to do with freedom of speech, which the phrase "book banning" implies.
Had to point out that keeping pornographic and sexually explicit material out
of school libraries is entirely within the reasonable realm of authority of
school boards and has nothing to do with freedom of speech, which the phrase
"book banning" implies.
Had to point out that pornography isn't what's being banned. Unless you consider titles like "Anne Frank's Diary", "Beloved", "To Kill a Mockingbird", "Slaughterhouse-Five", "Stamped from the Beginning: the Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America", "Me and Earl and the Dying Girl", or "Race and Policing in Modern America" to be pornographic, in which case you've got some seriously unusual kinks.
Schools don't usually make a habit of putting pornography in their libraries, (much to my surprise) not even in Florida.
Perfect example. A state the size of a European country probably with more diversity and lifestyle than one too, but you imagine you will be persecuted?
So you're making excuses for Nazis now? As I've already posted, it's not like this was some isolated incident.
No, the persecution I'd be worried about comes at the hands of a governor more worried about waging a culture war than actually running the state. You may agree with the governor, and that's great for you. For the people being targeted, avoiding Florida is a matter of survival, it's not being hoodwinked by some silly meme.
I wouldn't be comfortable having a female partner knowing that the state is waging war on reproductive rights. I wouldn't be comfortable raising kids in Florida given that it's leading the nation in book bans. I'd worry about a state that's so desperate to find teachers that they will accept military service instead of actual vocational training.
As a human being I don't want to live in a state where the government is engaging in a high profile ideological fight against a gigantic corporation in an effort to silence non-heterosexuals. I hear South Florida is nice, except for the whole anti-Cuba thing.
Hell, if I lived in Florida I'd worry about using radioactive waste to pave roads.
No, thank you. I prefer living in a state governed by someone who at least pretends to act like an adult. It's not a matter of missing some hidden gem, it's a matter of looking at the reality and deciding that's simply not for you.
Me? I've spent enough time in Florida. The infestation of jesus and gun billboards, the weather, and the infrastructure were enough to put me off. The more recent ascension of the culture-warrior-in-chief is just icing on the cake.
What Thiel is describing is a feedback loop: more people of x in a region means more people of x in a region simply because they will feel more comfortable among like people. These sorts of mechanisms certainly exist (Forrester on city planning), but with dynamic systems it’s always more complex than it would seem. Landlords definitely benefit from whatever feedback is making cities grow and are definitely interested in it continuing (thus probably investing in it), but its unlikely they are the ones behind the structure.
>I have met a ton of greatly exaggerated fears about places
>> Oh I could never move to Texas.
Reddit (for example) is filled with human NPCs, who react in predictable ways without intelligence. One predictable trigger is "Texas".
A recent Reddit post discussed something positive about Texas. The replies? Hundreds, maybe thousands, of comments by Redditors, all with no more content than some sneering variant of "Fix your electrical grid first", referring to the harsh winter storm of two years ago that knocked out power to much of the state. It was something to see.
If we can dismiss GPT as "just autocomplete" as many do, I can dismiss all those Redditors in the same way; as NPCs. At least GPT AI can produce useful and interesting output.
He was simply using those as examples of the manipulations used to keep people living in high rent places where no sane person would live if they were not manipulated to do so.
And I do not believe that he was saying it was the truth. Instead, I believe he was proposing it as an provocative answer to the question of why anybody would live in San Francisco, etc. when there are many nice places to live that cost less.
Did you discard his provocation completely what do you use in its place? Good weather? Good theaters?
Does he show evidence that gay people are afraid to move other places, if so is the value high end to affects relative to the total population of either city
> “So in conclusion—and this is a simplification, perhaps a distortion, but I think you know what I mean—it would be healthier that, whenever someone mentions DEI, you just think CCP.”
This could have been titled “Points Half Made.” Time and again he seems to set off on a path to saying something coherent, then mumbles snarky innuendo and changes to the next subject.
> An old-school Marxist critique of what we call “cultural Marxism” would say that all these identity politics, the whole diversity agenda, has only served to divide the working class.
I read this far in the spirit of curiosity, but I’ll bail here because it’s blatantly reinforcing antisemitism by citing blatant antisemitism that cloaked itself the same way.
> The progressive, theologically liberal types, backed by institutional support and intent on dispensing their vision of social justice, have come to resemble the nasty money-changers in the temple.
Cultural Marxism is an extension of the older idea of Cultural Bolshevism, which was a term used by Nazis (as in, the original 1930s-1940s ones) as an attack on modernist art and philosophy by associating them with the Bolshevik Revolution, and claiming that the Bolsheviks were using modernist thought as an attempt to subvert traditional values. It was antisemitic because it also involved the conspiracy theory that the Bolshevik Revolution was actually a Jewish plot and that the Soviet Union was controlled by Jews.
Essentially, modern art, philosophy, and media was Bolshevik, and Bolshevism was Jewish, and the Jews were a priori bad, therefore modernism (and thus many critics of the Nazi regime) were bad and couldn't be trusted. (And moreover, the Jews controlled the Bolsheviks, and the Bolsheviks controlled modernist thought via cultural Bolshevism, therefore modernism is just a Jewish plot.)
The modern variant is Cultural Marxism, which essentially makes similar claims about post-modernism. In fairness, Cultural Marxism tends not to be so blatantly antisemitic, although many of its early proponents in the 90s and 00s were themselves antisemitic. That said, it retains the same basic structure of claiming a conspiracy by a small group of philosophers (typically the "Frankfurt School") to subvert traditional values with a corrupt philosophy.
It is principally antisemitic in that it is simply a rehashing of an older antisemitic conspiracy theory, proposed predominantly by antisemites. The parts involving Jews have been filed off to make it more palatable to a mainstream audience, but this is a pretty thin veneer over what is fundamentally a Nazi-era conspiracy theory.
It's worth reading the Wikipedia article on Cultural Bolshevism (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Bolshevism) and following some of the links from there to understand the progression between the two ideas, and why people are understandably quite concerned about how mainstream the idea of Cultural Marxism has become.
I was ignorant of nearly all the terms you used, so bear with me, but seems like you're saying it's antisemitic because it seems to be an extension of a previously idea which was used as part of an antisemitic campaign.
You say "The parts involving Jews have been filed off ...". To be me, this doesn't necessarily suggest it's "to make it more palatable to a mainstream audience".
The whole thing seems heavily loaded to me (someone who is coming to these terms fresh-ish). I've heard some murmurings around how modernism is a "lefty" idea, and how criticism of modernism is a "right wing" idea, and that's falling into place a bit more now.
I think it's a bit simplistic to say that modernism is "lefty", especially today, when it's probably more of a conservative principle. (Postmodernism tends to be more accepted by the left, which might be what you were thinking of, but even that isn't always a very useful generalisation. The whole concept of being "post truth", which was Trump's whole playbook, is a very postmodern idea.)
I think the key thing is that the modernism/postmodernism/left/right thing doesn't really matter here, because both Cultural Bolshevism and Cultural Marxism are both fundamentally conspiracy theories. They both claim that modernism (and postmodernism respectively) are attacks on our society by a small group of bad actors who have infiltrated society in some way. (And to be clear, there is no evidence for these claims at all.) In Cultural Bolshevism, those bad actors were explicitly linked to the Jews. In Cultural Marxism, that explicit link isn't often there, but given the connections to the previous antisemitic theory, and the fact that many of the early proponents were explicitly antisemitic, it's difficult to separate the two entirely.
> While the term "cultural Marxism" has been used in a general sense, to discuss the application of Marxist ideas in the cultural field, the variant term "Cultural Marxism" generally refers to an antisemitic conspiracy theory.
I spent longer than I care to admit diffing "cultural Marxism" and "Cultural Marxism". I think this is the problem though; they're two different things, that happen to be written the same.
You cannot really make a connection to antisemitism by certain key words. While cultural Marxism certainly has some baggage, but it does not infer any hostility to Jews. It can do so, but it shouldn't be regarded as doing so.
It’s the only usage of “cultural Marxism” that’s ever been used, and any conceivable cover that might be plausibly deniable is blown by contrasting it with Marx.
I do think he makes some interesting points, especially at a high level. His "economically reductionist line of questioning" is something I think about... what are the incentives behind DEI, especially since DEI programs at large haven't seemed to accomplished their goals. And his point about rent/people wanting to live in cities seems true, too. Despite rent being crazy in NY/SF, for many people, those are the only cities they'd consider moving to.