Peter Thiel: I believe that politics is way too intense. That's why I'm a libertarian. Politics gets people angry, destroys relationships, and polarizes peoples' vision: the world is us versus them; good people versus the other. Politics is about interfering with other people's lives without their consent. That's probably why, in the past, libertarians have made little progress in the political sphere. Thus, I advocate focusing energy elsewhere, onto peaceful projects that some consider utopian.
My. God. What a truly shitty reason to be a libertarian (not that I am one myself, mind). Politics is way too intense? Well, guess what you poor widdle baby, tough fucking shit--and welcome to 21st Century, asshole, every aspect of human existence is also way too intense, not least because of the assholic forms of capitalism you're an apologist for. Deal with the horrible stomach-knotting complexity of life like an adult, not a narcissistic manchild with a magic pouch of libertarian fairy dust.
Hey, she's already had on the top strategist for the Repugnants, Meghan McGoon, so why should she compete with Faux Noise for all the fringe fungus? Also, as an extra, she invited one very droll character named Frum, who dryly lamented Rachel's lack of seriousness. Hilarious. This guy made his bones writing speeches for Bozo the Clown!
Bozo the Clown = George Bush? I'm just guessing here.
The only reason I know these is because I used to frequent HuffPo, and this is pretty much the standard operating lexicon of its commentators. Took me awhile to decrypt as well.
@TheWhiteRabbit: Right on the IDs, but dead wrong on the standardization. Each and every single one of those noms de nons I created myself. Show me one comment not by me myself in which any of those are used. (I comment very rarely on HuffPo.) I identified the old retread Repugnant candidate as my old cartoon hero way last year, with no prompting from anyone, and the name for the party is my own construction as well. I named Faux Noise also, and Bozo the Clown was just coined for this very posting. I generally do my own work.
Right on the glossary, but quite wrong that it's standard issue. Although I'm glad to see evidence the terminology makes sense sufficient to seem standard.
@youmakemefeellikedanson: If I want to see right wingnuts on the teevee, I know where to look, and I actually see quite too much of them on Countdown and Rachel already. Unquote.
@Tremonius: You "invented" the term 'repugnants' and 'Faux Noise'??? I've seen these terms on Air America radio for over a year and a half, just to name one place.
@dantebenuto: Some kind of strange synthesis allows you to see radio programs? I won't argue with that; neither will I take on the guys down on the street who hear voices out of the sky. At least then you don't have to prove what you say. Show me anywhere those terms were even used outside my own byline. I guarantee I never saw them anywhere before they occurred to me, so maybe that means I read radio waves too? I never listen to radio.
And, as practically everybody knows by now, Al Gore didn't actually say what you suggest.
@PennyMartian: Hey, I invented fidiculous! It's even on my resume! Play fair!
Although I'd like to see other occurances of Faux Noise and Repugnant, to name but two. I'll bet I can show you earlier versions from my various leavings.
That said, your explication is reasonable, especially as we consider the millions writing online today. I sometimes wonder if anybody else is having gruten berry with flax for breakfast...
@dantebenuto: I distrust clarity. It suggests somebody knows something, and us as don't resent that. Surrealism works for us to cover a multitude of thoughts. I mean, faults. #rachelmaddow
Married women tend to vote the same way as their partner, single women usually vote the same way as their parents (father). Giving women the right to vote meant that all of the stupid reasons that men vote the way they do were doubled.
Just how many times can someone use the words "myself," "my", "me" and "I"? I think Thiel sets a world record for the highest proportion of self-referential statements in an essay. And coming from a libertarain CATO institute type, that's saying something.
Thiel is correct in his assertions that there is a correlation between giving women the vote and a decline in governance. How can anyone seriously doubt that when the pool of voters increases so does the dive to the bottom. Politics is all about appealing to the LCD; only a fool would pretend otherwise. Voting has gone from a special right, and Presidents like Washington and Jefferson, to a token event and Presidents like Bush and Obama. You people miss the point entirely: once something goes from the exclusive to the prole, all bets of glory are off!
@FrederickAtlas (?????): How can anyone seriously doubt that when the pool of voters increases so does the dive to the bottom.
That's easy. If you assume that the distribution of intelligence is the same across both the old voter population (male) and the new voter population (female), then there's no reason to believe voter "quality" should go down when expanding voting rights.
Wow, you are completely ill-prepared for such conversation. The debate does not center on IQ, however, if it did men would likely come out better than women. Check La Griffe or Linda Gottfredson for the data. Men and women differ significantly in many areas of cognition. The data does not favor an assumption of "sameness;" only ignorance or weakness could make any learned human suggest men and women are of same mind.
Voting and governance are more about self-control and obligation to greater truth than about IQ. When voting was reserved for land-owning white males, rules and expectations could be developed and followed to some limited extent.
Rules for political debate could be better followed and adhered. As the pool of voters increased, the ability to enforce in-group norming naturally decreased. The greater the voting population, the greater the anonymity and the lower the sense of mission and obligation. Moreover, when anyone is able to vote, politicians are better able to exploit individual weakness by appealing to financial or emotional means. Women undoubtedly have played a large role in the backhandedness and emotionality that now permeates politics.
A lot of people want to believe. Too bad the dream is bull.
05/06/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
My. God. What a truly shitty reason to be a libertarian (not that I am one myself, mind). Politics is way too intense? Well, guess what you poor widdle baby, tough fucking shit--and welcome to 21st Century, asshole, every aspect of human existence is also way too intense, not least because of the assholic forms of capitalism you're an apologist for. Deal with the horrible stomach-knotting complexity of life like an adult, not a narcissistic manchild with a magic pouch of libertarian fairy dust.
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
Repugnants = Republicans
Meghan McGoon = Meghan McCain
Faux Noise = Fox News
Bozo the Clown = George Bush? I'm just guessing here.
The only reason I know these is because I used to frequent HuffPo, and this is pretty much the standard operating lexicon of its commentators. Took me awhile to decrypt as well.
05/05/09
Right on the glossary, but quite wrong that it's standard issue. Although I'm glad to see evidence the terminology makes sense sufficient to seem standard.
05/05/09
05/06/09
Are you actually Al Gore...?
05/06/09
05/06/09
And, as practically everybody knows by now, Al Gore didn't actually say what you suggest.
05/06/09
Although I'd like to see other occurances of Faux Noise and Repugnant, to name but two. I'll bet I can show you earlier versions from my various leavings.
That said, your explication is reasonable, especially as we consider the millions writing online today. I sometimes wonder if anybody else is having gruten berry with flax for breakfast...
05/06/09
11/12/09
11/12/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/01/09
04/29/09
04/29/09
04/29/09
04/29/09
I am neither Republican or Democrat and I would never follow in my father's footsteps of worshipping Fox News.
And I didn't realize that "parents" equalled "father." Thanks for clearing that up. I'll be sure to tell my mom that.
04/28/09
04/28/09
This guy is some pretentious douche. Just like celebs deal in politics, rich guys do too.
I suppose they do have a bit of power. Especially since they are IWM (Idiots wielding money).
Facebook is gonna be a ghost town kids. Move out.
04/28/09
I say we give him a billion dollars!
04/28/09
Jeff
04/28/09
That's easy. If you assume that the distribution of intelligence is the same across both the old voter population (male) and the new voter population (female), then there's no reason to believe voter "quality" should go down when expanding voting rights.
04/28/09
04/28/09
Voting and governance are more about self-control and obligation to greater truth than about IQ. When voting was reserved for land-owning white males, rules and expectations could be developed and followed to some limited extent.
Rules for political debate could be better followed and adhered. As the pool of voters increased, the ability to enforce in-group norming naturally decreased. The greater the voting population, the greater the anonymity and the lower the sense of mission and obligation. Moreover, when anyone is able to vote, politicians are better able to exploit individual weakness by appealing to financial or emotional means. Women undoubtedly have played a large role in the backhandedness and emotionality that now permeates politics.
A lot of people want to believe. Too bad the dream is bull.
04/29/09