The Vosgian Beast posted:Objectivism and Austrian Economics are why, when someone abbreviates Neoreaction A Basilisk as NAB, I mentally replace it with Non-Aggression Basilisk It reads as National Australia Bank to me, which means....nothing, it's just a coincidence.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 10:08 |
|
|
Tesseraction posted:I still cannot believe supposedly intelligent people read the definition of praxeology and went "why yes, perfect." But it is perfect, if your goal is to be able to create arbitrary but authoritative-sounding quasi-economics bullshit at the request of the people funding your think-tank. It is Working As Designed, as the majority of dodgy ideologies and philosophies are. It's just that their design goals are not what they claim to be. Truth is actually very rarely in the design document in the first place because it is of limited (or even negative) value if your real goal is money, power, or influence.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
I still can't believe the "rationalist community" got to give themselves the moniker "rationalist." How poncy can you get?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:I still can't believe the "rationalist community" got to give themselves the moniker "rationalist." How poncy can you get? Because "fans of critical thinking" doesn't sound as special. And critical thinking implies maybe possibly critically engaging with stuff you believe in, which is, like, really hard and uncomfortable and stuff.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
And "brights" as a moniker for "people entirely too convinced of their own intellect" was already taken.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
Heresiarch posted:And "brights" as a moniker for "people entirely too convinced of their own intellect" was already taken. I totally forgot about the "Brights" movement. That whole thing was so cringeworthy.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:Objectivism and Austrian Economics are why, when someone abbreviates Neoreaction A Basilisk as NAB, I mentally replace it with Non-Aggression Basilisk Yarvin, in his most recent blog post posted:STOP LOOKING AT ME!!!
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 02:08
|
|
|
Heresiarch posted:Objectivists (and by extension some of the Rationalists) are not in on the secret. They see people getting paid for bullshit and think that the bullshit must be worth something. Yep. Whole lotta just-world fallacy.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 04:05
|
|
|
pookel posted:I thought it was for "Victor Charlie" as in Viet Cong, but that's not really related to what I meant. I meant that they'd refer to the enemy combatants collectively as "Charlie" rather than calling an individual VC fighter "a Charlie." I've seen "Hajji" used in a similar way, to refer to a group of people and not as a singular noun. There have been a lot of those Ivan for the Russians, Jerry for Germans, etc.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 04:19
|
|
|
BobHoward posted:Yep. Whole lotta just-world fallacy. Whites are the Master Race from a purely objective POV. It is so evident it should be considered axiomatic. Eaually evident is that Jews are an inferior conglomerate of subhuman leeches. See, going from “I have some reservations about the Enlightenment” to full-on “Hitler made some really valid points actually” was difficult for someone from my background. But I am glad for going through this journey, it was educational and very fun. Had plenty of cherishable moments and almost no regrettable ones. Ultimately though, even though it has been demonstrated conclusively that Jews belong inside ovens, I feel most at ease around fellow lampshade-kins. For although I make the most compelling WN ever, producing some very articulate arguments in favor of rational anti-Semitism, my inner shekel-counter can only be shut so much before he bursts in screams of a Judaic tone. Anyway, to paraphrase some friend of the family from somewhere: “to each his own, but I’m gonna keep Jewing.”
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 04:21
|
|
|
Heresiarch posted:And "brights" as a moniker for "people entirely too convinced of their own intellect" was already taken. I still can't figure out if the worst part of that was naming themselves "brights" or the whole, "no were aren't saying your dumb, we call the non-brights "supers"" dodge.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 04:21
|
|
|
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slan This isn't new. I just read Excerpt Four. Apparently Thomas Ligotti has expressed thoughts and ideas I've had my entire life in a semi-palpable way. I don't know whether to order all his books or to write my own. Especially the idea of hating the Earth because it's the source of death/suffering, and destroying it as an FU to the 'natural order'. Count Chocula has a new favorite as of 05:08 on May 12, 2016 |
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 05:01
|
|
|
Count Chocula posted:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slan See a therapist, Count Chocula. I'm serious.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 05:12
|
|
Silver2195 posted:See a therapist, Count Chocula. I'm serious. I'm good, I see one, and I don't express or even have these thoughts outside of this thread, where they are explicitly related to the topic at hand. I'm not sure about Moldbug, but as Phil points out, Yud, Land, and Ligotti's philosophies flow DIRECTLY from their pathological fear of death. I'm kicking myself for not using mine to get tech billionaires to give me money.
|
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 05:56
|
|
|
Count Chocula posted:I'm good, I see one, and I don't express or even have these thoughts outside of this thread, where they are explicitly related to the topic at hand. I'm not sure about Moldbug, but as Phil points out, Yud, Land, and Ligotti's philosophies flow DIRECTLY from their pathological fear of death. I'm kicking myself for not using mine to get tech billionaires to give me money. Tell your therapist about these thoughts.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 06:22
|
|
|
Count, go read My Work Is Not Yet Done. One of Liggo's things is ahedonia, which has always struck me as boring, but might suit your thanatophobia quite nicely.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 06:59
|
|
Somfin posted:Tell your therapist about these thoughts. We've discussed them, and we will continue discussing them. The most fun I had was with a counselor who was tasked with helping me get motivated to find a job. The 2nd session hit a wall because, well: quote:As philosophical moves go, it is one of unsettling efficacy. Few indeed are the positions it cannot cut down, as Ligotti demonstrates with repeated and casual wit throughout the book. We might imagine, for instance, the swiftness with which it would dismantle the Miltonian position simply by blinking uncomprehendingly as soon as Milton begins to speak (and thus to sin) and asking “why are you doing that,” to which there is no possible response that Milton could ever give. His famed task of justifying the ways of God to men is, by definition, a claim that God’s decision to cast man out and demand that man return of his own free will appears unjustifiable, not least because it blatantly is. And Ligottian reasoning can similarly dismantle Moldbug, whose proclamation that “evil is chaos; good is order” runs immediately into the problem that a temporally bounded world in which things constantly change (i.e. the one we live in) must therefore be an inherently evil one in which his desire for order is as contemptible as it is doomed. But now I have a job, because my philosophical stance toward the human condition doesn't obviate my desire to participate in humanity, and the degree to which it effects my life waxes and wanes. I don't see what's wrong with it, though - I drew obvious conclusions (everything is meaningless) from the available evidence (we are all going to die). Again, Phil says it better than I do. I suspect this book's deconstruction of the various responses to the death fear will do me good. quote:But let’s try to take a snapshot of the Ligottian critique as it autodestructs. The issue, at the end of the day, is that we don’t want to die; that’s always the issue with Ligotti. Being nobody, after all, is only out of the question because of our basic certainty that we’re going to eventually be just that. It’s not that we can’t be nobody - it’s that we don’t want to be, or, rather, because we want not to be. Which is to say that at the final flickering instant of his line of thought, Thomas Ligotti does the only thing he possibly can do: he makes an affirmative commitment, just like he said he would all along. That's what snapped me out of it - I got tired of being so nihilistic. But the underlying conditions and responses are still there. I wonder if the book will tackle antinatalism.
|
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 07:21
|
|
|
Count Chocula posted:...I don't see what's wrong with it, though - I drew obvious conclusions (everything is meaningless) from the available evidence (we are all going to die). Posterity is a thing? Unless you're going to genocide everyone (which you're not  ) leaving the world a better place for those who come after seems like an easy goal. Sure, the Last People are actually going to have the genocide everyone option, and whether they'd take it is an interesting discussion, but on a practical level we may as well do something and quit moping about the choice we didn't/don't get to make. I mean by all means, dress in black and bemoan your eventual fate, but nobody buys it.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 07:51
|
|
|
Grenrow posted:I love how half of the rationalist reviews of Sandifer's book seem to be entirely about patting the "rationalist community" on the back for how brave and special and ~intellectually honest~ they are for arguing with their critics. I just saw a post where one of them is applauding the rest for not engaging in "ad hominem" (because rationalists never got beyond their freshman Intro to Rhetoric classes) and then one or two posts after that is another rationalist ranting about what an evil fuckhead Sandifer is. The VERY BEST possible review has been posted. I will go so far as to call this one this week's winner in rationalism.txt. Just read these in sequence: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5][ [6] SPOILER: spirals down into rant about Phil's penis.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 11:10
|
|
|
divabot posted:The VERY BEST possible review has been posted. I will go so far as to call this one this week's winner in rationalism.txt. Wow that dude, uh... yeah that's certainly an interesting direction to take a nuclear meltdown.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 11:28
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Criticising my philosophy is literally what Hitler did to the Jews. Not that Hitler did anything wrong of course. WAIT I'M SO CONFUSED Curvature of Earth posted:Because "fans of critical thinking" doesn't sound as special. And critical thinking implies maybe possibly critically engaging with stuff you believe in, which is, like, really hard and uncomfortable and stuff. At least "skeptics" sound like dicks. Curvature of Earth posted:I totally forgot about the "Brights" movement. That whole thing was so cringeworthy.  The Brights logo, slightly amended for accuracy.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 11:39
|
|
|
divabot posted:The VERY BEST possible review has been posted. I will go so far as to call this one this week's winner in rationalism.txt. Who are Rorschach, Comedian and Moloch in his wordless pass-agg analogy? phil sandifer is the memetic basilisk turning "rational" people into dick-obsessed shitposters, wonderful
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 11:58
|
|
|
divabot posted:
Wrong angle. 
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 14:30
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:Wrong angle. Doesn't it look like a farting butt to you?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 14:35
|
|
|
I feel weird recommending an amazon review but this about covers it (I like some of Ligotti's fiction)
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 14:48
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Doesn't it look like a farting butt to you? I meant it needs to feature the rear end in a top hat more prominently, to better reflect the personality of its members.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 14:58
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
http://meaningness.com/metablog/stem-fluidity-bridge What the gently caress is this?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
Why do these idiots always think postmodernism is this big, current thing that people still talk about?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
It's like how christian fundamentalists are still obsessed with rock music and dungeons and dragons and Derrida because the guy who was writing updated volumes of The Fundamentals died in 1985.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
It's the same with feminism. "Oh, you're le feminisms? The defend Dworkin and Solanas, please.  After that, you can move on to the White Feather Movement."They don't seem to get that those issues were dealt with long ago, nor do they particularly care.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
http://www.wired.com/2016/05/investor-peter-thiel-will-california-delegate-trump/Eleizer Yudkowsky posted:
Is he trying to say that Thiel has some secret hidden plan too Machiavellian for the common mortals to understand? At this point, it shouldn't be surprising to anyone that Thiel is a Trump supporter.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
Grenrow posted:http://www.wired.com/2016/05/investor-peter-thiel-will-california-delegate-trump/ Yudkowsky is the sort of person who overestimates anybody he likes, making it painfully, embarrassingly easy to fool him. Yudkowsky is the ideal mark for a con: he thinks he's very smart, and assumes anyone who willingly associates with him is also very smart for doing so, and dear Lord you could probably get this man to give you his pants while out in public.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
Hellequin posted:http://meaningness.com/metablog/stem-fluidity-bridge I read pomo as porno. It made a bit more sense that way.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:Yudkowsky is the sort of person who overestimates anybody he likes, making it painfully, embarrassingly easy to fool him. Yudkowsky is the ideal mark for a con: he thinks he's very smart, and assumes anyone who willingly associates with him is also very smart for doing so, and dear Lord you could probably get this man to give you his pants while out in public. future gangster computer god will kill five bazillion of you if you don't take your pants off
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Yeah if Phil's doing something odd, 99% odds are it's a Blake homage. If he's saying something questionable, 99% odds is because he's convinced it's the Blake-iest thing to possibly say. Is this a gimmick? I literally just posted this.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
DoctorWhat posted:Is this a gimmick? I literally just posted this. look at that post again and scroll up
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
Hellequin posted:http://meaningness.com/metablog/stem-fluidity-bridge Welcome to the meta-level. Here we have penetrated the ancient tombs of wisdom with our piercing rationalist intellects in order to find the meta-necronomicon. The meta-necronomicon, by the way, reads like if Thomas Friedman tried to reinvent sociology
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
Djeser posted:look at that post again and scroll up Oh wow, awful app bug. My apologies!
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 10:08 |
|
|
My favorite meta-level post rationalist is the guy who quit being a drummer in an indie rock band in order to go on a voyage of intellectual discover which culminated in him expressing his deep insights in the most bland empty marketingspeak platitudes he could muster It's like this song given form and flesh https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyV_UG60dD4
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 18:10
|
|