oh hmm. thanks for explaining! I think I don’t universally agree with offering intellectual charity, especially to those with extremely large implementable agency differences, like thiel (and sbf, and musk, and anyone with a particularly enormous stake of power coupons, aka money). I’m extremely suspicious by default of such people, and the fact that thiel has given significantly to the trump project seems like strong evidence that he can’t be trusted to speak his beliefs, since he has revealed a preference for those who will take any means to power. my assertion boils down to “beware adversarial agency from trumpist donors”. perhaps it doesn’t make him completely ignorable, but I would still urge unusually much caution.
The exercise of figuring out what he could’ve meant doesn’t require knowing that he believes it. I think the point I formulated makes sense and is plausibly touching on something real, but it’s not an idea I would’ve spontaneously thought of on my own, so the exercise is interesting. Charity to something strange is often like that. I’m less clear on whether it’s really the point Thiel was making, and I have no idea if it’s something he believes, but that doesn’t seem particularly relevant.
I mean I agree with that assessment. I do think that, hmm, it should be more possible to be direct about criticism on lesswrong without also dismissing the possibility of considering your interlocutor to be speaking meaningfully. Even though you’re agreeing with me, I do also agree with Nesov’s comment in way—if you can’t consider the possibility of adversarial agency without needing to bite back hard, you can’t evaluate it usefully.
WTF downvotes! you wanna explain yourselves?
I’m guessing the problem is that you are advocating against dignifying the evil peddlers of bunkum by acknowledging them as legitimate debate partners.
oh hmm. thanks for explaining! I think I don’t universally agree with offering intellectual charity, especially to those with extremely large implementable agency differences, like thiel (and sbf, and musk, and anyone with a particularly enormous stake of power coupons, aka money). I’m extremely suspicious by default of such people, and the fact that thiel has given significantly to the trump project seems like strong evidence that he can’t be trusted to speak his beliefs, since he has revealed a preference for those who will take any means to power. my assertion boils down to “beware adversarial agency from trumpist donors”. perhaps it doesn’t make him completely ignorable, but I would still urge unusually much caution.
The exercise of figuring out what he could’ve meant doesn’t require knowing that he believes it. I think the point I formulated makes sense and is plausibly touching on something real, but it’s not an idea I would’ve spontaneously thought of on my own, so the exercise is interesting. Charity to something strange is often like that. I’m less clear on whether it’s really the point Thiel was making, and I have no idea if it’s something he believes, but that doesn’t seem particularly relevant.
fair enough!
See I just think it means he’s a shortsighted greedy moron
I mean I agree with that assessment. I do think that, hmm, it should be more possible to be direct about criticism on lesswrong without also dismissing the possibility of considering your interlocutor to be speaking meaningfully. Even though you’re agreeing with me, I do also agree with Nesov’s comment in way—if you can’t consider the possibility of adversarial agency without needing to bite back hard, you can’t evaluate it usefully.