I don’t know how evil he is or isn’t, but he took a damn f’ing long time to answer the question “should humanity continue”.
And when he did, he answered “Yes, but” and then went onto a rant about how the problem with being transvestite or transsexual is that it doesn’t go far enough and we need to be trans humans who swap their hearts and then their souls…
But he is absolutely right about that. There is in humans a sort of essence. We can't currently fully pin it down, but it is something related to our intelligence, to our feelings, to our consciousness, and to our souls. This is worth preserving.
Then there are these many other things: our skin colors, our two legged locomotion, having five fingers, lungs that breathe air. These things are not required, and could be improved our replaced without losing who we are.
You could imagine fully replacing biological humans with purely electronic robots, but such a thing is not possible at our current poor level of understanding of our essence. There is simply too high risk of losing part of it.
But in the far future with super-intelligent robots and/or genetically engineered post-humans, what could the role of a current-human even be? He would be a living fossil. A circus animal novelty, a pet? A primitive indigenous people with Terra as their reservation?
I'm convinced him doing the talk on the Antichrist was to misdirect search results in the same way Beyonce made a song called "Bodyguard" that overshadowed a controversy about an affair with her bodyguard
Yeah, there's always a twinkle of conspiracism that lights up inside me when I see something like that, and I do try to think rationally about it, but I end up coming to the conclusion... that it may not actually be that unlikely!
Naming things is easy: Why not hold a talk about the Antichrist when people have been calling you one? Why not name a single song (or even write one from scratch) to cover up some controversy. Or, of course, why not name a movie "Frozen" when there are rumors about what happened to your founders body.
I feel like the PR benefit, even if maybe intangible or purely hypothetical, is so easy to justify given the low amount of effort involved in it.
Though I do think it's rather gauche to hold a public talk about the Antichrist in Thiels situation, I think that doesn't really dispell the rumors, it just brings him and the topic closer together? No? Maybe he's just trying to tell us something. :)
I'm not saying he's trying to deflect accusations of being the Antichrist
The actual PR issue is that his interest in the Antichrist highlighted his adoration of Carl Schmitt, a Nazi philosopher and jurist who was responsible for enshrining Führerprinzip as German law
This wasn’t a religious comment. I was simply saying that he fits an archetype that has existed in western thought for quite some time. Apparently it’s too spicy to say that a radical fascist billionaire who runs a surveillance company fits a mold because it got flagged lol. Can I say that Peter Thiel is duck typed as Antichrist?
Evil is so hard to quantify, but I do believe him a sociopath, who's also comically bad at hiding it, in comparison to a lot of other C-Suite people.
I do not really think Peter Thiel fits the "Antichrist" description though, I think the biblical figure is supposed to be quite charismatic and a leader that people love, Thiel's just... not good enough at that...
The impression I get is that the antichrist gets everyone to follow him by force and fear, rather than by love. They don't worship him because they love him, they worship him because he'll kill them if they don't.
don’t worry, account age and moral viewpoints are only correlated, not linked causally! for instance, i’ve had an account for a long time and i also believe peter thiel is an evil man. it’s an easy logical fallacy to fall into! don’t feel bad for messing it up.
I don’t know how evil he is or isn’t, but he took a damn f’ing long time to answer the question “should humanity continue”.
And when he did, he answered “Yes, but” and then went onto a rant about how the problem with being transvestite or transsexual is that it doesn’t go far enough and we need to be trans humans who swap their hearts and then their souls…
But he is absolutely right about that. There is in humans a sort of essence. We can't currently fully pin it down, but it is something related to our intelligence, to our feelings, to our consciousness, and to our souls. This is worth preserving.
Then there are these many other things: our skin colors, our two legged locomotion, having five fingers, lungs that breathe air. These things are not required, and could be improved our replaced without losing who we are.
You could imagine fully replacing biological humans with purely electronic robots, but such a thing is not possible at our current poor level of understanding of our essence. There is simply too high risk of losing part of it.
But in the far future with super-intelligent robots and/or genetically engineered post-humans, what could the role of a current-human even be? He would be a living fossil. A circus animal novelty, a pet? A primitive indigenous people with Terra as their reservation?
[dead]
I'm convinced him doing the talk on the Antichrist was to misdirect search results in the same way Beyonce made a song called "Bodyguard" that overshadowed a controversy about an affair with her bodyguard
Or when GitHub launched the Svalbard "artic code vault" to misdirect results about its involvement with ICE.
Yeah, there's always a twinkle of conspiracism that lights up inside me when I see something like that, and I do try to think rationally about it, but I end up coming to the conclusion... that it may not actually be that unlikely!
Naming things is easy: Why not hold a talk about the Antichrist when people have been calling you one? Why not name a single song (or even write one from scratch) to cover up some controversy. Or, of course, why not name a movie "Frozen" when there are rumors about what happened to your founders body.
I feel like the PR benefit, even if maybe intangible or purely hypothetical, is so easy to justify given the low amount of effort involved in it.
Though I do think it's rather gauche to hold a public talk about the Antichrist in Thiels situation, I think that doesn't really dispell the rumors, it just brings him and the topic closer together? No? Maybe he's just trying to tell us something. :)
I'm not saying he's trying to deflect accusations of being the Antichrist
The actual PR issue is that his interest in the Antichrist highlighted his adoration of Carl Schmitt, a Nazi philosopher and jurist who was responsible for enshrining Führerprinzip as German law
What a strange thing to say on a non-religious thread. The worlds not a movie
This wasn’t a religious comment. I was simply saying that he fits an archetype that has existed in western thought for quite some time. Apparently it’s too spicy to say that a radical fascist billionaire who runs a surveillance company fits a mold because it got flagged lol. Can I say that Peter Thiel is duck typed as Antichrist?
Evil is so hard to quantify, but I do believe him a sociopath, who's also comically bad at hiding it, in comparison to a lot of other C-Suite people.
I do not really think Peter Thiel fits the "Antichrist" description though, I think the biblical figure is supposed to be quite charismatic and a leader that people love, Thiel's just... not good enough at that...
...maybe just for some tech bros?
The impression I get is that the antichrist gets everyone to follow him by force and fear, rather than by love. They don't worship him because they love him, they worship him because he'll kill them if they don't.
> Evil is so hard to quantify
I would offer to qualify:
Evil
[dead]
Lotta brand new accounts posting slop lately.
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
Brand-new account posts slop. Gets defended with slop from brand-new account.
don’t worry, account age and moral viewpoints are only correlated, not linked causally! for instance, i’ve had an account for a long time and i also believe peter thiel is an evil man. it’s an easy logical fallacy to fall into! don’t feel bad for messing it up.
> watch as I undermine my own counterexample!