I got as far as "he says crypto is bad but also didn't make any money in crypto!" before I couldn't go any farther. Up until that point the author was at least doing a pretty competent job of using negative space (i.e. not engaging with the specific issues of racism, cult of personality, etc.) and using sufficiently boring prose to avoid seeming completely insane.
SneerClub
Hurling ordure at the TREACLES, especially those closely related to LessWrong.
AI-Industrial-Complex grift is fine as long as it sufficiently relates to the AI doom from the TREACLES. (Though TechTakes may be more suitable.)
This is sneer club, not debate club. Unless it's amusing debate.
[Especially don't debate the race scientists, if any sneak in - we ban and delete them as unsuitable for the server.]
Attempt 2 got all the way to the part about Scott before I had to come up for air.
-
The defense of Wikipedia's preference for policy over basic human decency in the Chelsea Manning name change was once again left entirely implicit.
-
This is probably for the best because otherwise David's insistence on reliable sources over letting LWers do their own hagiography on Wikipedia's letterhead is much harder to criticize.
-
Is Neoreaction: a Basilisk a bit of a woozle/citogenesis? Maybe? But are we going to argue about the central factual claims it makes? Nope. There's no attempt to dispute the overlap between NRX and Ratdom, just an un-argued assumption that nobody should care enough to put it in their Wikipedia article. I swear, you build ten thousand bridges and nobody cares but you repeatedly speak favorably of actual fascist's attitudes on race science on your large and influential platform and everyone loses their minds.
Edit because man who can remember how to do formatting?
The list of diatribes about forum drama that are interesting and edifying for the outsider is not long, and this one is not on it.
@Starseeder @sneerclub That article is a powerful argument for professional editing.
(I do not mean that its topical content makes any such argument.)
Christ, there's so much backstory here - just scrolling through long descriptions of Gerard's views and just thinking "based, based, based, based."
Sandifer had been busy during her time away from Wikipedia, writing an essay collection titled Neoreaction: A Basilisk. Five of the self-published book’s six essays (about ants, TERFS, Trump, the Austrian School, and Peter Thiel) were forgotten the day they were written. The sixth is Gerard’s masterwork. Sandifer starts the essay with quick critical overviews of Eliezer Yudkowsky, Curtis Yarvin, and Nick Land, then goes on a sprawling journey from William Blake to John Milton, with stops at Fanon, Debord, Butler, and Coates. This review describes the experience well. I can only describe it as leftist free association based on the prompt “Say whatever comes to mind, inspired by David Gerard’s obsession with Roko’s Basilisk and neoreaction combined with your own love of leftist theory.”
trace also makes Neoreaction: A Basilisk sound fucking awesome, and it's weird that this might be what gets me to finally read my copy
That review that he links to is not even very fond of Yudkowsky. They say they have a sort of "yes, and" response to Sandifer's book but TW probably interpreted it as "yes, but" and slurped it up to have some sort of criticism to the book. Makes me wonder how many posts that elaborate a bit on their opinions he even read. Or maybe he got confused whose book was being talked about.
Neoreaction: A Basilisk really is great, you definitely should tackle it soon!
LOL he's gotten pissed
https://www.themotte.org/post/1070/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/227907?context=8#context
TracingWoodgrains may be of a different quantity than David Gerard, but he's proven he isn't of a different type.
lol quality sneer. (and of course themotte would react like this, as they consider TWG a centrist at best and often a leftwinger, see the comments upstream)
Edit Ow god TWG what are you doing? do you have no selfawareness? Are you self harming?
why would anyone put all these cortisol-addicted chuds in one place and what keeps them coming back there
Took me like five minutes of reading to realize this was neant to be a hit piece and not praise.
Depends, I guess. After reading (well, skimming, to be honest) it, I love David even more. <3
I am well acquainted with this genre of article and I ain't reading all that. Not bothering to be involved with this example was the obviously correct decision, even if Trace kept nagging after I'd already said "no thank you" (that famous rationalist grasp of consent).
This in the companion article caught my eye:
While I am not personally a rationalist,
Trace, I have some unfortunate news for you.
I regret to inform you that Trace is hate-reading awful.systems too & has posted this comment on their Twitter.
You’d think these people would have learned by now that there’s no upside in them spending their precious time on this earth obsessing over why a group of people don’t like them, but nevertheless here they are: drawn like moths to the flame.
dear me. doesn't he know that the actual art requires hate-skimming at most?
I regret to inform you that Trace is hate-reading awful.systems too & has posted this comment on their Twitter.
Their writing is so boring I can't even summon up the enthusiasm to make a "senpai has noticed us" joke.
There would be an upside if they could magically acquire some self-awareness, and reflect on why a whole group thinks their ideas are idiotic. Alas,
I regret to inform you that Trace is hate-reading awful.systems too & has posted this comment on their Twitter.
Surely out of the interest of Rational Fair And Balancedness, he will link back to this place in his article. Surely, he has already done so before I mentioned this.