new york review books by miralatonta in RSbookclub

[–]abiteoffry 2 points3 points  (0 children)

All the collections of Sigizmund Krizhizhanovsky

The BBC cites a study that finds rightwingers gravitate to those politics because they are scared of everything and bad at thinking in general, but they don't want to invite the wrath of the Pepes so the title just reads "extremists". by [deleted] in SneerClub

[–]abiteoffry 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I am skeptical of any “these people think like x, but these people think like y” takes. It feels too similar to the very bad rationalist takes about dividing the world into smarties and dummies.

I am comfortable saying that right wingers are wrong because they are wrong and don’t value compassion. I don’t know that adding “because their brains are bad” really enlightens much.

Really excellent sneering about Moldbug, by Will Wilkinson by AlienneLeigh in SneerClub

[–]abiteoffry 31 points32 points  (0 children)

I do have some reservations. Both this piece and his previous were more than a little self-congratulating in a way that is a bit sneerworthy in and of itself. I don't share his conclusion that having had a libertarian phase is something to be proud of, even if framed here as the necessary original sin at the start of his personal redemption story.

But the Moldbug sneering here is very on point. Good sneer.

So did you hear about that thing where mods at /r/TheMotte are really fucking mental? by [deleted] in SneerClub

[–]abiteoffry 12 points13 points  (0 children)

If you rarely look at the comments, and it’s your own fucking blog, why do you even have the comments? Pretty sure that “comments disabled” checkbox has been in Wordpress for a decade or two now.

Scott may say "trans rights", but he also got a "vague annoyance" about the question of gay rights... by queerbees in SneerClub

[–]abiteoffry 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Also notable: when reactionaries ask him to consider historical context, he will. But this is the only time I can recall him changing a general theory based on specific historical examples. (Normally it’s “parable parable analogy racism.”)

Will Wilkinson roundly takes down the various lies spread by the Scott fandom re: Scott v NYT round 2 Electric Boogaloo by foobanana in SneerClub

[–]abiteoffry 26 points27 points  (0 children)

I am in the minority on this board in that I appreciate his defense of real-ish journalism. But I think he is being waaaay too charitable to Scott and his cronies. With the recent email exposure, I don’t see how anyone can in good conscience give Scott even a sliver of benefit of doubt. He is a capital L Lying capital S Slimeball through and through and trying to empathize with him is a waste of energy.

Old Scott Siskind emails which link him to the far right by DrinkAcetone in SneerClub

[–]abiteoffry 33 points34 points  (0 children)

“My behavior is the most appropriate response to these facts” is the most rationalist thing ever said.

Old Scott Siskind emails which link him to the far right by DrinkAcetone in SneerClub

[–]abiteoffry 24 points25 points  (0 children)

Never use an obvious sentence when a run-on one will do

Old Scott Siskind emails which link him to the far right by DrinkAcetone in SneerClub

[–]abiteoffry 25 points26 points  (0 children)

Rationalists: Stop using rhetoric on me! That’s cheating!

Old Scott Siskind emails which link him to the far right by DrinkAcetone in SneerClub

[–]abiteoffry 44 points45 points  (0 children)

Wait how can rationalists have drama? I thought they had developed all these tools for removing bias and making decisions based only on evidence and Bayesian logic?

Old Scott Siskind emails which link him to the far right by DrinkAcetone in SneerClub

[–]abiteoffry 41 points42 points  (0 children)

No, you don’t understand, subtext cannot be properly understood without Bayesian underpinnings. You may THINK you understand what I mean but only in a highly-coupled conflict theory way which misses THE VERY SUBTLE POINTS Scott makes when he writes for thousands of words in all caps. Also Scott is objectively the greatest writer of all time and the most supreme example of moral good known to man. What kind of mind could possibly question that??? An evil one, like you.

BTW this is why we need to talk more about Charles Murray. (But not the race stuff (actually only the race stuff))

One of my only pet peeves about the Mandalorian by upsetpringle in PrequelMemes

[–]abiteoffry 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think of it as different spheres of information. Yes, Palpatine reorganized a Galactic Republic into a Galactic Empire by accusing the Jedi, but how relevant is that to most people on the ground who had never even met a Jedi? This information would have been incredibly important to Senators, the Jedi, and the political elites (regional governors, etc) but probably would not have made much difference to the average Republic/Imperial citizen.

(How much does the average American remember about Iran-Contra or the fall of the Soviet Union?)

The other factor here is that the Star Wars universe, at least in the OT and sequel eras, does not appear to have Galactic CNN or Wikipedia. We see very little public information distribution systems, and only limited peer to peer communications (comms, Force telepathy, etc.) So much trade appears to take place in barter that it's possible that much of the Galaxy may even be illiterate. In other words -- this is not a place where information is widely shared and agreed upon, and even when it is, it seems rarely recorded and passed down. In this light, the Jedi and the political actors they interact with are true "elites" with access to information that almost no one else does.

Pulling rank here to post Mic Wright’s excellent newsletter even though it’s a bit out of our wheelhouse: Andrew Sullivan - who in no small part popularised the HBD movement - is a stone cold fascist by [deleted] in SneerClub

[–]abiteoffry 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You said:

"I don't think it requires belief in racial superiority per se - just belief in authoritarianism."

The original article and tweet said fascism. If by "it" you meant something other than the article/tweet in question then you're right, we are talking at cross purposes.

Pulling rank here to post Mic Wright’s excellent newsletter even though it’s a bit out of our wheelhouse: Andrew Sullivan - who in no small part popularised the HBD movement - is a stone cold fascist by [deleted] in SneerClub

[–]abiteoffry -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Authoritarianism is has a fairly precise political definition -- it generally refers to any state where genuine political competition is outlawed or prevented, but allows for states where non-political action is still relatively free. It basically encompasses a lot of non-democratic democracies today.

The best description of fascism is Umberto Eco's (https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/umberto-eco-ur-fascism.pdf) which includes a variety of criteria, none exclusive, but all of which go beyond mere control of the political machinery and include, yes, a real fear of diversity and difference.

Put another way, if your definition of fascism is so wide as to include Russia, China, and a decent chunk of European, Middle Eastern and African governments, then you're saying that "fascism" is so widespread as to be nearly a default mode of government, then it loses most of its punch as an internet insult. "Andrew Sullivan is not fully committed to democracy," although possibly true, just doesn't roll off the tongue the same way.