[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?

[unityByFreedom]

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

> Why is it wrong to speak the truth?

One could argue that some degree of voting against extreme capitalists has allowed capitalism to endure.

Women got the vote 100 years ago, and America still has the dominant marketplace in the world.

Capitalism has expanded across the world since that time. Even China has largely embraced capitalism.

Nothing is wrong with speaking either a truth or a theory.

However, what you put forward isn't based on any research and sounds more like a stereotype, or your personal experience, than an objective truth backed by science.

In those cases, there can be more than meets the eye.