Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
What Do You Believe That No One Else Here Does?
Peter Thiel is well-known for asking this question in interviews:
PETER THIEL: The intellectual question that I ask at the start of my book is, “Tell me something that’s true that very few people agree with you on.” This is a terrific interview question. Even when people can read on the Internet that you’re going to ask this question to everybody you interview, they still find it really hard to answer. And it’s hard to answer not because people don’t have any ideas. Everyone has ideas. Everyone has things they believe to be true that other people won’t agree with you on. But they’re not things you want to say.
He himself was unforthcoming when asked the question, though:
TYLER COWEN: Peter, tell me something that’s true that everyone agrees with you on.
PETER THIEL: Well there are lots of things that are true that everyone agrees with me on. I think for example even this idea that the university system is somewhat screwed up and somewhat broken at this point. This is not even a heterodox or a very controversial idea anymore. There was an article in TechCrunch where the writer starts with “this is going to be super controversial” and then you look through the comments — there were about 350 comments — they were about 70 percent in my favor. So the idea that the education system is badly broken is not even controversial. You know, the ideas that are really controversial are the ones I don’t even want to tell you. I want to be more careful than that.
So what do you believe that puts you at odds with everyone else? What do you believe that puts you at odds with Ricochet, in particular?
Published in General
Jethro Tull Manager: “I’ve got an awesome new band you need to hear. They’re called Jethro Tull”
Imaginary A&R Guy Troy Senik: “How would you describe their sound?”
Jethro Tull Manager: “Well, it fuses folk and hard rock, with some blues influences…”
Imaginary A&R Guy Troy Senik: “I’m listening…”
Jethro Tull Manager: “…and it relies heavily on rock flute.”
Imaginary A&R Guy Troy Senik: “Get the hell out of my office.”
Does anyone remember the scene from David Lodge’s Trading Places when the academics were seated around the dinner table playing “Humiliation?” I’m suddenly worried about how this thread ends.
Quickly, Jordan, to the Member Feed! This needs to be a post.
Oh, Frank, I realize its a minority view.
And you can dispute Tacitus. First of all, I think the oldest copy of the manuscript dates from 1000 AD. So we have like 900 years of copyists copying it, and it wouldn’t take much to insert a line. (Which is the kind of thing that was done all the time.)
Second, he wrote what he did around 116 AD and devotes one line to the subject. So even if the line was actually written by Tacitus, he’s writing it 80 years after the fact, and tells you exactly as much as any Sunday school 3rd grader can tell you.
Nobody wins. You just go to the next level.
I believe the only issue a majority of Republicans and Conservatives are more populist and progressive on than progressives and Democrats is immigration. Semi-open immigration to open immigration is the classic small “l” liberal and conservative position (although amnesty is not).
Is that the movie with Eddie Murphy?
No. But that’s because I got the name confused. It’s Changing Places, not Trading Places.
I believe government regulation has a vital role to play in the United States. I also largely support the existence of labor unions outside of the government. (possible exception for police and firefighters.
That said, I think our current regulatory environment is a disaster, and our current administration is working hard to make every rule into a political cudgel.
This is a remarkable statement. How could you know how irrational people are unless you knew their nature? If you do know human nature, how could you reject natural law or something like it–that is to say an understanding of right or justice that depends on a reasonable understanding of nature?
Or do you think reason–I assume that’s the judge of rationality!–is unnatural?
1. The designated hitter position actually improves baseball
2. Slower rates of marriage and family formation are not an undifferentiated social ill.
3. Term limits — including for the presidency — are a bad idea
4. There’s still an entirely plausible (which is not to say likely) path for Chris Christie to be the Republican presidential nominee in 2016.
[Response to Claire] I’m moderately okay with same sex marriage, but religious liberty is a deal breaker. (Most people here seem to either oppose SSM outright or consider religious liberty a side issue which doesn’t affect their position.)
[Response mostly to Tom, but it works for Claire too] Partly disagree. Base 12 is inherently superior to base 10. The human mind naturally thinks in halves, thirds, and quarters. What is a third of a meter? 33.3333333333333333333333333333333333(you get the idea) centimeters. 12 is much more easily divided into portions easy for the human mind to grasp. The only area where base 10 is superior is counting on one’s fingers.
I didn’t think I remembered that scene.
I take it, you’ve not offered a brief explanation because you were busy running from the, let’s say, madding crowd?
Slower than what? How much slower?
I’d except the presidency, in fear. Can you imagine an FDR fourth term?
No, there is not. Plausible? There’s a musical in which he wins, but that’s about as far as it goes.
See my comment in the Walker immigration thread: I think most people would agree with you if we trusted Bush et al. to actually enforce the border. The trust gap is the problem.
This is true of most historical records Fred. Original manuscripts are rarely what we have copies of. We have copies of copies of copies dating well after the original event. All of them are vulnerable to manipulation. Why single this one out?
Arrian wrote about Alexander 500 years after his death.
Cigarettes are good for the soul!
Oh, and all bands named after geography are garbage: Boston, Kansas, Chicago, America, Europe, Asia, Berlin…
Because it’s the one datum you’re using to support your claim of historicity of Jesus.
Josephus was the best chronicler of his age. Does he mention Jesus?
There are far more then one Fred. I just don’t want to clutter this thread.
Is this the most narrow-minded answer you can give or have you got better to offer? All claims about dead people depend on what you so accurately call a datum or another. Question one without grounds specific to it & you question it all.
Yes. One passage is considered to have been manipulated at some point, though most scholars believe the core passage was there all along. Another in a separate book is not seriously disputed.
The world would be a better place if everyone had to do what I say.
Yes, although there’s some scholarly doubt about whether some of what he’s supposed to have said was a later Christian addition.
Christianity is no where near dead in Europe.
Evolution in the macro-evolutionary neo-Darwinian, exhaustively explanatory sense has been falsified and should no longer be called science (h/t David Berlinski for that).
Ronald Reagan’s decision to allow no-fault divorce in California is at least as responsible for the collapse of marriage as the libertine culture and the bad actors of the “LBGT Community”.
A smart question posed by Claire to gauge the interests of her readership, while hand-weeding the trolls?! Ok, my turn:
1. Half the time you should withhold your opinion. Not everyone needs it all the time.
2. If you don’t learn from history, you’re doomed to repeat it. That one seems to be buried in the dust of ancient thought, but “since here we are again”, it needs to be dusted off.
3. I believe God is real and present, came to live among us as both divine and human, with a message of peace and life after death, and there is no other, and that He has given men over to their illusion that man is smarter and can build a better existence devoid of Him. As you can see, that’s going well. Very few people I know in everyday life honestly think that.
One personal comment to the woman who sees the world as an illusion (false idea, mirage). That would make my #3 false, so how to put suffering into any context other than meaningless. People being beheaded, thrown overboard, nailed to crosses, raped, put in cages and burned alive wouldn’t think it was an illusion, with all due respect. I suggest “does suffering have a purpose, and what is it?” be a topic for discussion.
Now to flip on some good ol’fashioned Jethro Tull and be thankful we have the freedom to discuss all topics.
In certain, very limited and extreme cases, genocide ain’t so bad.
That was resolved by the finding of the Arabic century manuscript in the library of Bagdad back in the 70’s. Yes, he mentions Jesus. The sole difference is that the Arabic translation says “he was believed to be the Messiah” and not “he was the Messiah” as is common in later Latin texts.
I believe that contraception will be replaced by natural methods of family planning, but I think this will happen due to a combination of technological advances, health concerns, and possibly aesthetic concerns, and not necessarily moral concerns.
Ok, this one requires elaboration please? Or are you just baiting us?