I looked at your article and it seems he's just saying that when women were enfranchised, the type of democracy we had became less supportive of libertarianism.

I have no idea whether that's true or not, but misquoting him is not contributing to an intelligent dialogue.

That quote follows Thiel around on here. Someone always brings it up as damning, even though Thiel's statement is a bit vague and likely exactly what you stated.

I didn't quote him, I made an assumption about the quote. He said the country was better before women got the vote. He doesn't say that libertarians should try to figure out how to earn women's vote, but rather that women don't vote for libertarian policies/candidates and that is in his view the problem. Its a very short logical jump to infer that he thinks women shouldn't vote. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not sure he's ever corrected this misunderstanding, if it is in fact a misrepresentation of his true opinion.

I see what you're saying.

Would it be fair to compare this to saying "I think architecture was better in the ancient times, when low-paid craftmen fashioned each stone by hand"? If I said this, I don't think it should be assumed that I'm in favour of eliminating living wages for laborers.

I agree with you on your last point. I don't think Thiel is too concerned with people misunderstanding him, and he certainly could be more specific.

Yeah, who knows. They guy just kind of throws out these seemingly outrageous statements and moves on.

He thinks the world would be better if women couldn't vote, but it is too late to take it away from them.

Yup, that's the gist people should be taking from it.

And it's pretty darn stomach-turning and creepy, any way you slice it.

He said that women are a tough constituency for libertarianism and capitalism, but that "It would be absurd to suggest that women’s votes will be taken away." How on earth are you getting "women shouldn't be allowed to vote" from that?

Well, for one, that he chose to say "will be taken away" when responding to this criticism, instead of "should be taken away," implying that he thinks they ought to be taken away (because it would allow for his libertarian utopia) but that it won't happen for other reasons.

That's some pretty advanced selective reading. From the same paragraph: "I don’t think any class of people should be disenfranchised."

That's not quite accurate. What he did say was bad enough without exaggeration for effect. He said women voting led to less libertarianism, and he regards less libertarianism as a tragedy. He claims that he supports women voting.

He also said that 'democracy and freedom are incompatible' because the masses don't vote for his libertarian paradise.

He may get a pass for not (directly) advocating that women shouldn't be allowed to vote. But what he did say is sufficiently stomach-turning that one has to question the judgement of any tech company that would want to maintain associations with such a person, in any capacity.

In any case there's also this precious quote

Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron.

Which, if read properly, is very revealing about the vision he has in mind for society.

One of the most important tools of thought is the ability to seperate the normative from the descriptive

That's a lie, as even your own link confirms.

When you see comments like this, it's little wonder Thiel has gotten interested in Seasteading. Perhaps he thinks it's the only way to escape from this most virulent strain of stupid.

If we're going to debug what's wrong with America, this comment is like ground zero. Start here, and work backwards.