[gaurav_v]

Not only that; in response controversy arising from the 2009 essay he explicitly stated that "It would be absurd to suggest that women’s votes will be taken away or that this would solve the political problems that vex us."

See addendum to the essay at bottom: https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...

Lazy editing by the NYT.

[ucaetano]

> Lazy editing by the NYT.

This isn't an article by the NYT. It's an opinion piece by someone unrelated to the newspaper:

Jonathan Taplin is the director emeritus of the University of Southern California’s Annenberg Innovation Lab and the author of “Move Fast and Break Things: How Google, Facebook and Amazon Cornered Culture and Undermined Democracy.”

[masonic]

... which is why the comment said, "lazy editing".

The NYT chose to publish this in full. They bear responsibility for what they choose to put on their pages.

[ucaetano]

> The NYT chose to publish this in full. They bear responsibility for what they choose to put on their pages.

No. Newspapers don't "bear responsibility" for opinion sections or letters to the editor.

They publish them because they find the opinions relevant, not because they condone or support the content. The NYT frequently published highly opposing opinions together.

[usegolang]

It feels pretty ironic that this article takes a jab at FB with the fake news comment and then NYT, which arguably should be held to a higher bar for pieces like this, gets a pass on fact checking.

[philippoi]

It's not an article, though. It's an editorial, which simply isn't the same format. It's a self-promotion for an author critical of Silicon Valley. It's not reporting news, but an author representing his views on a broad subject with a particular (attempt at) focus on a recent issue.

[ucaetano]

Really? It is the OPINION section. It isn't journalism, there's no editing by the NYT, no fact checking.

It has been like that for decades, if not centuries, in pretty much every single newspaper in the world.

[leereeves]

It's one thing to publish a broad range of opinions; quite another to publish libel like "[Peter Thiel thinks] women should not even have the vote."

[ucaetano]

That's still an opinion. I'm sure a lot of people disagree with Putin, but I don't see an issue with the NYT publishing an opinion piece by Putin.

[leereeves]

Thiel either does or doesn't think that; it's a fact.

It's a difficult fact to discern but still a statement of fact that shouldn't be made without evidence, in this world where people are fired because the media claims they think that.

[perseusprime11]

The media these days is like the Eye of Sauron. Lot of darkness, sensationalism, and very little true journalism.

[Analemma_]

That quote is what political journalists call a "non-denial denial". Superficially it looks like it refutes the claim "I don't think women should have the right to vote" while actually doing nothing of the sort on close examination.

[JamesBarney]

Any reading of that quote with even a minimal amount of charity says he doesn't believe the vote should.be taken from women.

[willbw]

"it would be absurd to suggest X" doesn't amount to a denial of support for X? Why not?

[cakedoggie]

> It would be absurd to suggest that women’s votes will be taken away

This suggest not that HE DOESN'T want them to be taken away, but he sees he has no chance of trying to take them away.

Not that this suggest he DOES WANT that, but it certainly doesn't suggest that he DEFINITELY DOES not want them taken away.

[randyrand]

but he does admit it would not solve our political problems.

[unityByFreedom]

Then why point to that as a "problem" in the first place.

I agree that including more constituent groups in a democracy makes its administration more complex. But that doesn't make it impossible, and it definitely doesn't make the whole worse-off.

I guess I disagree with Thiel that it makes our system, "capitalist democracy", impossible. We're living it. It's complicated -- but when has government ever been simple in history?

I find his claims of libertarianism as being free from the typical struggles of politics to be extremely out of touch.

Being wealthy can free you from politics, until you start to get interested in it, and then you're in the thick of it just like everyone else.

Also, his "humble" suggestion that others call his projects "utopian", is simply exactly what political candidates say. "I can build your future, just give me your support". I dread the day the public swallows this lie from the likes of Thiel or Musk. It'll be worse than 2017.

[leereeves]

Thiel said "capitalist democracy [is now] an oxymoron", a rhetorical figure in which incongruous or contradictory terms are combined. In other words, that democracy and capitalism are becoming opposed.

That does seem to be increasingly true.

[unityByFreedom]

It's the premise that is the most controversial, not the conclusion.

People can debate all day over whether America's current system is sustainable. When they start to suggest the inclusion of the female vote is part of the reason for that, they're understandably going to face some backlash, regardless of whatever corrections they make in the future. What he wrote is clear enough, and his correction can be understood by conservatives to be insincere, since it was forced on him by the mainstream view.

[leereeves]

It's hard to deny that women vote against capitalists more often.

Why is it wrong to speak the truth?