|
Do you know what goes great together? Ayn Rand and Buddhism, apparently. http://the-toast.net/2016/05/06/at-last-someone-has-combined-zen-buddhism-with-ayn-rands-objectivism/
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 03:21 |
|
|
Nessus posted:Do you know what goes great together? Ayn Rand and Buddhism, apparently. http://the-toast.net/2016/05/06/at-last-someone-has-combined-zen-buddhism-with-ayn-rands-objectivism/ quote:Now let me correct you on a couple of things, OK? Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not "Every man for himself." And the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked them up. [edit] I see somebody beat me to the obvious response in the comments already. Ah well. Heresiarch has a new favorite as of 00:05 on May 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure you have to murder a couple thousand Muslims to be considered "Dark Buddhism"
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
I only just kind of skimmed it, but it seems to me like the gist was basically: 1) Buddhism and Objectivism are mostly incompatible 2) Buddhism has no rigid code of morals and shows that there is no one privileged point of view 3) Therefore, I can simply ignore the parts that don't gel with what I already believe but still claim to be a Buddhist and tack on the word "dark" because I am mentally 15 Edit: went back and read it more thoroughly and that's exactly what it said. I don't think you could possibly find any two philosophies that are more in conflict with each other in the very core of how they perceive the world. Also lmfao at "if enlightenment weren't a good thing, nobody would want it, right?" The very meaning of enlightenment is that you have absolved yourself of the desire to be enlightened, among all other worldly desires. So clearly this guy took Philo 110 and decided he understood the intricacy of Zen enough to completely ignore the parts that don't fit with Objectivism (i.e. All of it except the name) Heath has a new favorite as of 01:03 on May 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
Heath posted:I am mentally 15 AltRight.txt
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
Heath posted:1) Buddhism and Objectivism are mostly incompatible For a  philosopher this guy cannot spot axiomatic incompatibility to save his life. They are entirely incompatible. Unless your version of Buddhism is New Age Spirituality™, there should be no way to blend "only I matter" and "I don't exist."
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
Another reacto review From the blog that gave us not talking to fascists is abuser behavior and whatever the living hell this is.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
Do any of these people end up killing themselves? They don't seem to have much in life to keep them going. For as much as "the friendzone" likely features into their worldview, I bet they don't have many friends either. Like, can you imagine being 25 and white with some kind of middle-class job and being furious about loving curbside recycling? What do you have to live for at that point?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 04:14
|
|
|
The pleasures of being one of the privileged classes? Half of this is probably outrage addiction.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 04:21
|
|
|
Their own philosophy about genetic selection justifies their suicides though so that's depressing
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 04:35
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:Do any of these people end up killing themselves? They don't seem to have much in life to keep them going. For as much as "the friendzone" likely features into their worldview, I bet they don't have many friends either. It's one of the things that makes them more insufferable than actual fascists. The Italian Futurists would be close cousins to neoreaction. But at least the Futurists walked their talk and all got killed doing manly poo poo in WWI.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 04:45
|
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:Another reacto review Why is Phil giving free copies of his book to people who claim to hate everything he represents, and are simultaneously too bafflingly stupid to understand what he even represents in the first place? Like, if you wanna talk about signalling, these Nrx reviews are it right here: the entire depth of their engagement with Phil's text begins and ends with "Author is admitted Marxist → This book is bad". They're more concerned with desperately taking a Marxist down a notch—a Marxist who's approached them asking for comment, no less! Or rather, trying very, very hard to take him down and failing because the vast bulk of neoreactionaries are shallow idiots with a rickety worldview that can't survive genuine engagement with anyone of Phil's calibur. I'm actually embarrassed for them. Phil is literally handing it to them on a silver platter, and they're still fuckin failing to write a critique that doesn't leave me actively pitying their abysmal reading comprehension.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 05:03
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:Why is Phil giving free copies of his book to people who claim to hate everything he represents, and are simultaneously too bafflingly stupid to understand what he even represents in the first place? For Laffs, I assume.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 05:08
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:Why is Phil giving free copies of his book to people who claim to hate everything he represents, and are simultaneously too bafflingly stupid to understand what he even represents in the first place? Eh, kinda seems like you just answered your own question.  I liked the most of the "substance" of the review was nitpicking about mega nerd poo poo only LessWrongers care about.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 05:24
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:Why is Phil giving free copies of his book to people who claim to hate everything he represents, and are simultaneously too bafflingly stupid to understand what he even represents in the first place?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 05:25
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:Why is Phil giving free copies of his book to people who claim to hate everything he represents, and are simultaneously too bafflingly stupid to understand what he even represents in the first place? Step 1:Read text critical of Less Wrong. Step 2:Find a place in said text where the author mentions one of the Angels Dancing On The Heads Of Pins topics LW loves Step 3: Find error in summary. If one does not exist, manufacture one. Step 4: Spend countless hours and thousands of words carefully examining and re-examining the dancing angels problem with the help of all the people who are always ready to produce thousands of words arguing about vaguely sciency nothings. Step 5: You have now "delt with" the problem by burying the actual criticism beneath an industrial waste dump of pedantic verbiage about a minor part of the text.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 05:31
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:Why is Phil giving free copies of his book to people who claim to hate everything he represents, and are simultaneously too bafflingly stupid to understand what he even represents in the first place?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
This man is having the time of his life and I feel proud to be in the same timeline as him.Space Raptor Butt Redemption posted:After a year stationed on planet Zorbus, astronaut Lance Tanner and his raptor lover Orion return home to find that they are not greeted as heroes, but as villains.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 06:16
|
|
|
It's great publicity because it prompts these turds to validate everything in the book. I'm sure the audience that gathers to laugh at them by reading their awful stuff is pretty big, so it's also like product placement.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 06:16
|
|
|
I can only hope these sci-fi book awards result in a narrative from Mr. Tingle. He is perhaps the most unexpected ally we could have in the internet culture war, but I'm glad he's here.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 06:20
|
|
|
PYF Dark Enlightenment Thinker: 5,000 words of sizzling human on gay dinosaur action
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 06:51
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:I can only hope these sci-fi book awards result in a narrative from Mr. Tingle. He is perhaps the most unexpected ally we could have in the internet culture war, but I'm glad he's here. he already wrote a book about being pounded in the butt by his hugo award nomination
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 08:10
|
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:Another reacto review "so much for this Shakespeare fellow this so called 'Macbeth' has no decision theory at all 0/10 do not give money" Phil actually called the guy out on his completely ridiculous review. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Not sure I'd spend so much time arguing with a shitheaded reviewer, but evidently he thinks it'll work for him and set expectations. As Storming The Ivory put it: "Honestly my new favorite spectator sport right now is watching Cultists/NRXers flagrantly lie about Neoreaction A Basilisk and pad out the lies with countless words boiling down to 'I’m twelve and what is lit'" Basically, if you want to get the arguments hot off the presses, Phil's Tumblr is where the action is. Curvature of Earth posted:Why is Phil giving free copies of his book to people who claim to hate everything he represents, and are simultaneously too bafflingly stupid to understand what he even represents in the first place? The discussion is accelerating nicely and he's successfully establishing they will be called out on complete BS. Also the Kickstarter's topped $7k. The Vosgian Beast posted:Step 1:Read text critical of Less Wrong. This is literally the process by which rationalists deal with all critiques of their subculture, particularly step 3. Neoreactionaries are even worse for it. edit: step 6: call the author a lying liar who lies and is misreading you from malice. leftclausewitz notes, and Storming The Ivory concurs, how LW basically wants the Neoreactionary end goal. (Of course I noted this a coupla years ago.) divabot has a new favorite as of 15:03 on May 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
divabot posted:Neoreaction a Basilisk colour facsimile zine edition preview is up now. Time to dive into the sofa for loose change! holy poo poo it starts with fuckin grover im in
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
I was amazed when it hit $4k and now it's hit $7k in a little over a week. Holy moly!
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:I was amazed when it hit $4k and now it's hit $7k in a little over a week. Holy moly! I hope this thing is as full of gratuitous William Blake references as it appears to be
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
A Man With A Plan posted:PYF Dark Enlightenment Thinker: 5,000 words of sizzling human on gay dinosaur action Holy poo poo, please make this the thread title.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
Shakespearean Beef posted:I hope this thing is as full of gratuitous William Blake references as it appears to be Sandifer's next project, according to that podcast he did with divabot, is an annotated complete edition of Blake's work, so I'd say odds are good.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
This is a bit off the subject but I love how he repeatedly cites a séance to contact Blake in Last War in Albion.
Unbelievably Fat Man has a new favorite as of 19:18 on May 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
I just noticed Neoreaction a Basilisk has been marked as a "Project We Love" by kickstarter themselves 
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:I just noticed Neoreaction a Basilisk has been marked as a "Project We Love" by kickstarter themselves Considering the amount of thinkpieces asking "Is Kickstarter responsible for the content it hosts?" Written by major publications in response to neoreactionaries it might be good business sense on Kickstarter's end to endorse it
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:Another reacto review Applying what I am assured is a good form of textual analysis to that review gave me this Fnord posted:Phil Sandifer book Eliezer Yudkowsky, Mencius Moldbug/Curtis Yarvin, and Nick Land. Kickstarter page overview, advise against giving him any more money I posted this rigorous analysis in the comments, but there's a 50/50 shot that goes through so I'm posting it here.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
Oligopsony posted:
How is there even room for all that in 5,000 words?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
How is there even room for all that in 5,000 words? [/quote] Writing is an art and he's a master of his craft
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
It's OK! Crisis averted, everyone! Scott has cautioned the rationalists not to talk about the book. Because "do not look at/talk about/acknowledge Neoreaction A Basilisk or bad things will happen" is a line of thought that has worked out spiffingly for rationalism heretofore. Phil sends a love note to the rationalists in general. Meanwhile I had a bit of a rant following up stormingtheivory and leftclausewitz on Yudkowsky and neoreaction.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 13:08
|
|
|
quote:If you post something like “I hate Eliezer, the Singularity is the rapture for nerds, and effective altruism is imperialism and we should have full communism instead”, rationalist Tumblr as a whole will conclude that you are a rationalist and trying to be friends, and will behave accordingly. (“Behaving accordingly” involves reblogging you with long-winded rebuttals; see dogpiling.) Rationalist Tumblr tends to parse statements that are probably intended to be “boo rationalists” as being serious critiques: it tends to go “hmm, maybe the Singularity is the rapture for nerds… well, on one hand, your point is valid because it is an eschatology that’s most popular among Silicon Valley types, but on the object level the Singularity does seem more plausible than the Rapture, and Singulatarians tend to be explicitly universalist…” I have to say that I agree with him that this is actually a good thing on some level. Tone deaf, but the thing that keeps me from 100% writing off the whole LessWrong crew as a bona-fide cult is that they are willing to engage in this kind of self-criticism. They're only 90% of the way there otherwise.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 14:21
|
|
|
What does 'steelmanning' mean by the way?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 14:38
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:What does 'steelmanning' mean by the way? It's supposed to be the opposite of strawmanning, where instead of inventing a lovely version of someone's argument to attack, you invent the best possible version of someone's argument to debate against.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 14:46
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:What does 'steelmanning' mean by the way? The opposite of a strawman - to try and imagine the "best" and most sound version of your opponents argument to lend credence to your counterargument.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 14:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 03:21 |
|
|
The opposite of strawmanning, basically, in that you intentionally construct the most charitably interpreted, logically rigorous, and conformant to facts version of an opponent's argument as the subject of a refutation. Dunno why what seems like the proper way to make a good case needs its own special term but hey. eta: Wow, OK, that was enthusiastic.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 14:47
|
|