PYF Dark Enlightenment Thinker

The Something Awful Forums > Main > Post Your Favorite: Carefully Curated > PYF Dark Enlightenment Thinker

divabot: Jun 17, 2015; A polite little mouse!

Peztopiary posted:

I think as long as you're white, they aren't going to quibble about who should lead the movement. They've got a gentleman's agreement to paper over the irreconcilable parts of their philosophies until after they've killed the rest of us.

As The Right Stuff puts it, "no enemies to the right, except cucks like Anissimov of course"

# ? Aug 17, 2015 22:40

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 31, 2024 15:04

Wales Grey: Jun 20, 2012

Is "The Right Stuff" a blog or something? I keep seeing it mentioned here and getting very confused because I don't remember anything about NRx or their intellectual bedfellows in The Right Stuff by Tom Wolfe.

# ? Aug 17, 2015 22:45

divabot: Jun 17, 2015; A polite little mouse!

Wales Grey posted:

Is "The Right Stuff" a blog or something? I keep seeing it mentioned here and getting very confused because I don't remember anything about NRx or their intellectual bedfellows in The Right Stuff by Tom Wolfe.

http://therightstuff.biz - a white nationalist group blog with a bit of neoreactionary jargon and a STUPENDOUS number of comments per post. The furthest alt-right you could go and still be in neoreaction. See also The Right Drama and The Right Vidya, or better still don't.

# ? Aug 17, 2015 22:49

Shame Boy: Mar 2, 2010

divabot posted:

The furthest alt-right you could go and still be in neoreaction.

What exactly is right-er than NRx, outright murdering everyone in the world?

# ? Aug 17, 2015 23:30

The Vosgian Beast: Aug 13, 2011; Business is slow

Parallel Paraplegic posted:

What exactly is right-er than NRx, outright murdering everyone in the world?

It's basically how willing you are to pretend you aren't a complete neo-nazi genocidal maniac.

# ? Aug 17, 2015 23:39

Curvature of Earth: Sep 9, 2011; Projected cost of
invading Canada:
$900

divabot posted:

http://therightstuff.biz - a white nationalist group blog with a bit of neoreactionary jargon and a STUPENDOUS number of comments per post. The furthest alt-right you could go and still be in neoreaction. See also The Right Drama and The Right Vidya, or better still don't.

I see their podcast is called the "Daily Shoah" in a calculated effort to offend.

Now let's hear the story of how the Jews Stole Christmas:

The Right Stuff posted:

Jews have this deeply-ingrained culture of needing to undermine the social cohesion of every society they�re in.

Non-Christians represent ~29% of America but let's keep blaming the ~2% who are Jewish!

# ? Aug 17, 2015 23:40

The Vosgian Beast: Aug 13, 2011; Business is slow

Curvature of Earth posted:

I see their podcast is called the "Daily Shoah" in a calculated effort to offend.

Now let's hear the story of how the Jews Stole Christmas:

Non-Christians represent ~29% of America but let's keep blaming the ~2% who are Jewish!

We are so very very much not nazis, because we don't use the same justification for nazi beliefs that the nazis used. Duh.

# ? Aug 18, 2015 00:29

divabot: Jun 17, 2015; A polite little mouse!

The Vosgian Beast posted:

We are so very very much not nazis, because we don't use the same justification for nazi beliefs that the nazis used. Duh.

To be fair, The Right Stuff are Nazis and proud. "14 88" all over the comments, etc.

# ? Aug 18, 2015 00:44

The Vosgian Beast: Aug 13, 2011; Business is slow

Oh, right, I was stuck on thinking in terms of the intelligentisa.

# ? Aug 18, 2015 01:00

divabot: Jun 17, 2015; A polite little mouse!

The Vosgian Beast posted:

Oh, right, I was stuck on thinking in terms of the intelligentisa.

Yeah, that's the gay SF Jew snide disdain crowd.

And now for something that starts off completely different, but gets back to on-topic: Hallquist responds to Alexander's response to him. Dissects Alexander's bluster wonderfully, then gets into the neoreactionary infestation at LessWrong. Beautiful, beautiful. I disagree with Hallquist on so many things, but he can write a coherent loving long-form piece that has a structure and a point and shows its loving working.

Topher Hallquist posted:

And part of what went wrong with LessWrong and the neoreactionaries was that some people who weren�t themselves neoreactionaries felt the need to be nice to them because they were part of the LessWrong in-group. Scott Alexander is exhibit A here.

# ? Aug 18, 2015 01:31

The Vosgian Beast: Aug 13, 2011; Business is slow

I like that LW and SSC are kind of a lesson in how learning about all those fallacies doesn't stop you from obviously committing them constantly.

# ? Aug 18, 2015 03:21

Shame Boy: Mar 2, 2010

The Vosgian Beast posted:

I like that LW and SSC are kind of a lesson in how learning about all those fallacies doesn't stop you from obviously committing them constantly.

Meta-Fallacy Fallacy

# ? Aug 18, 2015 03:56

Merdifex: May 13, 2015; by Shine

Come on, isn't it obvious that feminists are meta-level stalinists while neoreactionaries are object-level racists, but meta-level clever obfuscatory racists who have insights like "racism is good?"

# ? Aug 18, 2015 10:48

Peztopiary: Mar 16, 2009; by exmarx

It is amazing that a group can have something like phyg and not be aware that they're in an objectively bad place.

# ? Aug 18, 2015 11:20

The Vosgian Beast: Aug 13, 2011; Business is slow

From that blogpost

Hallquist posted:

At one point, I actually had an offline acquaintance who was into LessWrong messaging me on Facebook to tell me that the fact that the N-word (he didn�t use the euphemism) was taboo showed that people are irrational about race. Therefore, he said, we should suspect that maybe black people are inferior after all. When I did not respond well to this, he demanded I give him more benefit of the doubt because �you know I�m sane.�

# ? Aug 18, 2015 14:27

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

The Vosgian Beast posted:

From that blogpost

This is an example of how Bayes works. Prior: p(friend_is_sane) > p(friend_is_a_racist_idiot). Now considering the evidence, we update our beliefs; now our posterior is: p(friend_is_a_racist_idiot) > p(friend_is_sane).

# ? Aug 18, 2015 14:40

Woolie Wool: Jun 2, 2006

From the Dark Enlightenment I learned that considering "rational thought" morally superior to other forms of thought leads not to reason, but to madness.

# ? Aug 18, 2015 15:07

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

The trick is to realize that words can mean whatever you want them to mean as a consequence of the realization that custom and habit are mind-killing encumbrances. After that, it's easy to be rational, and an expert at everything.

# ? Aug 18, 2015 15:14

The Vosgian Beast: Aug 13, 2011; Business is slow

Woolie Wool posted:

From the Dark Enlightenment I learned that considering "rational thought" morally superior to other forms of thought leads not to reason, but to madness.

I feel like rational thought is just kind of the trappings they wear over their idiocy, because it's what's in vogue, especially among those who might listen.

If intuition and divine revelation were popular right now, they'd be going for that.

# ? Aug 18, 2015 17:01

Heresiarch: Oct 6, 2005; Literature is not exhaustible, for the sufficient and simple reason that no single book is. A book is not an isolated being: it is a relationship, an axis of innumerable relationships.

Woolie Wool posted:

From the Dark Enlightenment I learned that considering "rational thought" morally superior to other forms of thought leads not to reason, but to madness.

Bertrand Russell's first rule from his "decalogue" is: "Do not feel absolutely certain of anything."

If you are not plagued with self-doubt about your knowledge and your methods then you are probably not actually very intelligent.

# ? Aug 18, 2015 17:10

ikanreed: Sep 25, 2009; I honestly I have no idea who cannibal[SIC] is and I do not know why I should know.

syq dude, just syq!

Heresiarch posted:

Bertrand Russell's first rule from his "decalogue" is: "Do not feel absolutely certain of anything."

If you are not plagued with self-doubt about your knowledge and your methods then you are probably not actually very intelligent.

I feel more than intelligence the ambiguity is reflected by understanding. The urge to treat something as simple comes from having a shallow knowledge of it.

Like, addition is simple. But most people don't know how to rigorously define it, apply it in rings and groups, or prove it's commutative property.

Not because they're dumb. But because those require some related depth.

# ? Aug 18, 2015 17:32

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

ikanreed posted:

I feel more than intelligence the ambiguity is reflected by understanding. The urge to treat something as simple comes from having a shallow knowledge of it.

See: Moldbug or Yud on the Scientific Method, Yud on stats, Scott on feminism.

For example, I actually think Scott has decent statistical intuitions, and a good head on his shoulders in general. It's just that he's absolutely untrained in statistics, so wherever his (disproportionally good) intuitions fail, he can't go methodological, and often, his intuitions have nothing to work with.

# ? Aug 18, 2015 18:28

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Woolie Wool posted:

From the Dark Enlightenment I learned that considering "rational thought" morally superior to other forms of thought leads not to reason, but to madness.

The problem, I think, is that it is very easy to find reasonable, logical systems which happen to just explain what you already knew to be true. The profound power of the scientific method in all its messiness comes from being able to guide you towards looking at what you know to be true and seeing if it actually is.

# ? Aug 18, 2015 18:55

Curvature of Earth: Sep 9, 2011; Projected cost of
invading Canada:
$900

Woolie Wool posted:

From the Dark Enlightenment I learned that considering "rational thought" morally superior to other forms of thought leads not to reason, but to madness.

I'm not much of a Michael Shermer fan, but as he put it: Smart people are very good at rationalizing things they came to believe for non-smart reasons.

# ? Aug 18, 2015 19:14

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

Curvature of Earth posted:

I'm not much of a Michael Shermer fan, but as he put it: Smart people are very good at rationalizing things they came to believe for non-smart reasons.

He is the perfect demonstration of that principle, in fact.

# ? Aug 18, 2015 19:19

Shame Boy: Mar 2, 2010

Jack Gladney posted:

He is the perfect demonstration of that principle, in fact.

What's he done? All I know about him was when I read Why People Believe Strange Things when I was a shithead teenager.

# ? Aug 18, 2015 22:36

neonnoodle: Mar 20, 2008; by exmarx

Parallel Paraplegic posted:

What's he done? All I know about him was when I read Why People Believe Strange Things when I was a shithead teenager.

For one thing, he's a serial sex criminal! So there's that. But also, he's one of these skeptic apologists for free market economics. Even though he's no longer a Randroid, he hasn't rejected the bulk of libertarian ideology, only the cult-of-personality parts of Objectivism.

It's probably just because Leonard Peikoff is just not all that charismatic. In an alternate universe where Ayn and Nathaniel stayed together, there would probably be an even deeper cult around her, if that can be imagined.

# ? Aug 18, 2015 23:17

Klaus88: Jan 23, 2011; Violence has its own economy, therefore be thoughtful and precise in your investment

neonnoodle posted:

For one thing, he's a serial sex criminal! So there's that. But also, he's one of these skeptic apologists for free market economics. Even though he's no longer a Randroid, he hasn't rejected the bulk of libertarian ideology, only the cult-of-personality parts of Objectivism.

It's probably just because Leonard Peikoff is just not all that charismatic. In an alternate universe where Ayn and Nathaniel stayed together, there would probably be an even deeper cult around her, if that can be imagined.

Isn't that basically the universe where America is a mad max wasteland?

# ? Aug 18, 2015 23:24

Shame Boy: Mar 2, 2010

neonnoodle posted:

For one thing, he's a serial sex criminal! So there's that. But also, he's one of these skeptic apologists for free market economics. Even though he's no longer a Randroid, he hasn't rejected the bulk of libertarian ideology, only the cult-of-personality parts of Objectivism.

It's probably just because Leonard Peikoff is just not all that charismatic. In an alternate universe where Ayn and Nathaniel stayed together, there would probably be an even deeper cult around her, if that can be imagined.

Yeah okay. I guess I never took him for a libertarian since an entire chapter of Strange Things was about why Ayn Rand's cult of personality was awful.

Are you serious about the sex criminal thing? I can't find a single mention of it on the wiki page...

# ? Aug 19, 2015 00:50

The Vosgian Beast: Aug 13, 2011; Business is slow

Parallel Paraplegic posted:

Yeah okay. I guess I never took him for a libertarian since an entire chapter of Strange Things was about why Ayn Rand's cult of personality was awful.

Are you serious about the sex criminal thing? I can't find a single mention of it on the wiki page...

http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck/2014/09/12/timeline-of-harassment-and-sexual-assault-allegations-against-michael-shermer/

# ? Aug 19, 2015 01:00

ArchangeI: Jul 15, 2010

Heresiarch posted:

Bertrand Russell's first rule from his "decalogue" is: "Do not feel absolutely certain of anything."

If you are not plagued with self-doubt about your knowledge and your methods then you are probably not actually very intelligent.

This is really the part that pisses me off so much about the DE crowd. They make sweeping statements that would normally need books full of methodical discussion and hundreds of studies of empirical evidence to be even considered as possibly true, and they just smugly state that they are correct because they are true, and if you don't see that you are obviously an idiot. While that in itself wouldn't be too bad, they also have the nerve to wrap themselves in a mantle of "rationality" and claim that anyone who doesn't agree with them does it for irrational reasons (again, with no actual evidence given, because they already know that this is true and self-evident). So their opponents aren't just wrong and/or stupid, they are wrong because they are stupid.

I know it is a pretty silly thing to get mad about, but drat if it doesn't get my blood pressure up.

# ? Aug 19, 2015 02:34

Curvature of Earth: Sep 9, 2011; Projected cost of
invading Canada:
$900

ArchangeI posted:

they also have the nerve to wrap themselves in a mantle of "rationality" and claim that anyone who doesn't agree with them does it for irrational reasons (again, with no actual evidence given, because they already know that this is true and self-evident). So their opponents aren't just wrong and/or stupid, they are wrong because they are stupid.

"Rationality is defined as me winning" is a funny trend among crackpots.

Particularly dumb theologians wield it as the Transcendental Argument for God (God made logic and science, therefore using logic and science to argue against God is to concede that God exists).

Austrian Schoolers call it Argumentation Ethics (all debates, by definition, require the use of the Non-Aggression Principle and a belief in self-ownership, therefore all arguments against libertarianism are wrong).

I eagerly await neoreactionaries codifying and coining a fancy name for their version.

# ? Aug 19, 2015 03:18

The Vosgian Beast: Aug 13, 2011; Business is slow

Curvature of Earth posted:

"Rationality is defined as me winning" is a funny trend among crackpots.

Particularly dumb theologians wield it as the Transcendental Argument for God (God made logic and science, therefore using logic and science to argue against God is to concede that God exists).

Austrian Schoolers call it Argumentation Ethics (all debates, by definition, require the use of the Non-Aggression Principle and a belief in self-ownership, therefore all arguments against libertarianism are wrong).

I eagerly await neoreactionaries codifying and coining a fancy name for their version.

It's not prima facie ridiculous to argue that a feature of one's belief system is integral to the practice of rational debate at all. You can be wrong about it, of course.

Blah blah splitting hairs, reactos still suck

# ? Aug 19, 2015 03:26

Shame Boy: Mar 2, 2010

The Vosgian Beast posted:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck/2014/09/12/timeline-of-harassment-and-sexual-assault-allegations-against-michael-shermer/

Well that's just loving terrible, thanks for catching me up :stare:

# ? Aug 19, 2015 03:55

MrRoivas: Sep 29, 2014

Relatively new post on SSC: http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/08/15/my-id-on-defensiveness/

Short version: I like right wingers who openly declare that black people are stupid and that God Kings are awesome and dislike feminists because feminists threaten me on a bone deep level. Being a white male, racist right wingers will never be able to make me feel unsafe. And that's what makes people like Moldbug better than Amanda Marcotte or Greta Christina.

# ? Aug 19, 2015 04:38

neongrey: Feb 28, 2007; Plaguing your posts with incidental music.

So after having your head lodged so deep up your own rear end for so long does your nose just go dead or what? I'm trying to imagine how he deals with it.

# ? Aug 19, 2015 05:09

Curvature of Earth: Sep 9, 2011; Projected cost of
invading Canada:
$900

neongrey posted:

So after having your head lodged so deep up your own rear end for so long does your nose just go dead or what? I'm trying to imagine how he deals with it.

Once you convince yourself it's a great view, it's easy to spend the rest of your life there.

# ? Aug 19, 2015 05:11

Peztopiary: Mar 16, 2009; by exmarx

People have been telling these guys to eat poo poo since they started spouting off their nonsense. In accordance with Bayesian logic they gave it a shot and it turns out that their poop is delicious. Why would they want to go any further from the source than they have to?

# ? Aug 19, 2015 07:40

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

Curvature of Earth posted:

"Rationality is defined as me winning" is a funny trend among crackpots.

Particularly dumb theologians wield it as the Transcendental Argument for God (God made logic and science, therefore using logic and science to argue against God is to concede that God exists).

Austrian Schoolers call it Argumentation Ethics (all debates, by definition, require the use of the Non-Aggression Principle and a belief in self-ownership, therefore all arguments against libertarianism are wrong).

I eagerly await neoreactionaries codifying and coining a fancy name for their version.

I need a name for that actually. The next best example I can think of is free will. Philosophers who believe in free will often give you the argument that by debating, you are necessarily presenting yourself as being capable of making decisions (about arguments), which entails you being free.

So I like how you just called philosophers crackpots.

The word is performative retorsion by the way.

MrRoivas posted:

Relatively new post on SSC: http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/08/15/my-id-on-defensiveness/

Short version: I like right wingers who openly declare that black people are stupid and that God Kings are awesome and dislike feminists because feminists threaten me on a bone deep level. Being a white male, racist right wingers will never be able to make me feel unsafe. And that's what makes people like Moldbug better than Amanda Marcotte or Greta Christina.

I don't think that's a fair description at all.

# ? Aug 19, 2015 08:59

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 31, 2024 15:04

Tiggum: Oct 24, 2007; Your life and your quest end here.

Cingulate posted:

So I like how you just called philosophers crackpots.

Only the ones who use circular reasoning.

# ? Aug 19, 2015 10:25

The Something Awful Forums > Main > Post Your Favorite: Carefully Curated > PYF Dark Enlightenment Thinker

«‹›478 »