Great, so there’s no need to make up garbage takes on Thiel, since there’s plenty of legitimate, evidence-supported takes on him they could have gone with.

Any article which makes stuff up to support the cause is bad for the cause.

See, that’s a much more interesting take, with actual evidence. The article should have been about that. As is, the article is purely baseless fearmongering, and we don’t need that. If you’re going to write about how Trump is a threat to women, use the waterfall of evidence available for that.

I hate this picture. It makes him look cute.

There is a difference – his nine friends can still be shown the light.

I have no particular reason to believe he is being sincere. But, “Right-Wing Plot to Prevent Women From Voting Advances”? Hmm??

Haha, fair enough. I just think it’s bad journalism to play so loose.

Indeed, I have no love for Thiel. I just object to mischaracterization of my enemies; it makes it easier to criticize us.

I have read and reread those quotes three times. Where is he questioning the notion of women’s suffrage?

I am disappointed this article resorts to paraphrasing a paraphrase of Thiel’s essay rather than the original essay directly. Journalism! The paraphrase makes him sound like he’s intentionally being overtly misognyistic. In the original essay, he provocatively blames women’s suffrage for making it hard to get libertarian policies passed, and and afterward clarifies he obviously doesn’t mean women’s suffrage should be revoked.

Yeah, I too think that women’s suffrage resulted in different policies being voted in than would have otherwise. Similarly, if white men couldn’t vote, we’d see a lot of advances I’d like – but I don’t want anyone disenfranchised.

This article just says: “In 2009, Thiel said libertarianism would have more sway if only men voted. Also, Trump is requiring extra documentation in order to vote, disenfranchising many voters.” It does not explain what the plot in the headline is, or how Trump’s XO impacts women in particular.

Thiel may or may not be a misogynist (I have no idea), but can we at least keep our criticisms grounded in reality please?

i’m torn. As a gender abolotionist, I think more things should be gender-neutral.

“apparently a right-wing [person] said this” is low-quality content, gets my downvote. Such an unspecific comment serves only to outgroup people.

you’re preaching to the choir.

For everyone wondering if this means genocide against Israel – no! Of course not! This means the nation – that is, the government, the borders, etc. – needs to be reformed.

I think CA probably wouldn’t vote to join Canada. But Washington state might.

Genocide is not the answer. Assuming “zionist” includes “any jew living in Israel,” I hope for humanity’s sake that you are trolling.

no, you need to convince the moderates not to be nazis.

It’s often said that there’s no difference between a Nazi and someone who sits at a table with a Nazi. But it’s not true – one of them can be persuaded back to reason.

If Trump wants us to have a referendum on joining the U.S. as the 51st state, we should ask him in return for a binding referendum in any one state of our choice on joining Canada. Which state should we choose?

You can’t dismiss someone as a Nazi in this political climate. That’s like turning your back on a leaky pipe.

The Palestine-Israel conflict is famous for people assuming there is a clear solution, and then later admitting they were wrong.

It’s unclassy to reinterpretively paraphrase someone with a block quote like that.

I don’t know anything about how autonomous vehicles work. As far as humans doing unusual things, well assuming the human driver only steers the wheel and controls the gas and breaks, it should be possible with existing technology to avoid crashing into them at least as well as any human can. So that leaves really unusual things, like the human hopping out of their car in the middle of an intersection, as the high-hanging fruit to model. I would imagine for most of these really strange cases, even if the autonomous vehicle can’t understand what’s happening, they can at least realize that something strange is happening and then pull over.

Obviously there will be truly unusual situations that cause fatal collisions. So long as that is at a lower rate, then what’s the safety concern?

Safety is a red herring IMO, as better code can fix it. There are much worse potential problems that autonomous vehicles will cause than rare collisions. NotJustBikes has a lot of points I’d never considered before in the second half of this video. (The first half, though, I found aggravating; it’s just about solvable safety risks.)