Again, this is an argument you might first take up with Paul Graham and Sam Altman, because they disagree with you.

If you won't defend it, don't parrot it.

Again: I actually appreciate the comments here strenuously suggesting that Trump is no real threat to democracy. This is the sentiment Altman is making room for by continuing to endorse Thiel. Their relationship works to normalize Donald Trump.

If Sam Altman is comfortable with that, he should remain affiliated with Thiel.

I am really confused by your comments here. You keep invoking Sam and Paul, but what does their business relationship with Thiel have to do with political support? Should they delete him from their contact list, too? What level of separation would you, tptacek, require of someone to disassociate themselves from a political opponent?

Your comments are infuriating in another way, because you're not actually debating what many people here are trying to talk about. You are dodging any defense of your assertions that Trump would be like a dictator, while backhandedly repeating it. That's not a conversation. That's preaching, and dodging.

Postscript: Trump can only "act like a dictator" so far as he can abuse the massive expansion of presidential power granted as much by the Democratic party as from Republicans. But I won't defend that here. I'll just tell you that other, smarter people think it too, and you should ask them about it.

>Your comments are infuriating in another way, because you're not actually debating what many people here are trying to talk about.

tptacek is focusing on the article. He has a very simple argument that Altman is acting shamefully.

This argument depends on Altman believing that Trump is a threat to democracy. It does not depend on anyone else believing that Trump is a threat to democracy.

tptacek wants to settle that, rather than get mired in arguing about Trump.

It's not preaching and dodging. It's focusing.

tptacek is arguing Sam A and Paul G are being inconsistent. I think maybe he could've made that point more clear by being a little less clever with his comments. :)

He is arguing with prejudice, so "clever" comments are by design.

I'm not discussing whether Trump would be a dictator because that's not my argument. If you believe Trump wouldn't be a dictator, I am entirely comfortable with your support of Peter Thiel.

Lol. "I appreciate this discussion because, just the fact that there is a discussion, proves I'm right"?

It proves your beliefs are not universally held by the community. It supports my points, not yours.