Keep in mind that, for theologically conservative (“the Bible is historically and spiritually accurate”) Christians like myself,
rationalists whoo
I think we can all agree now that US Rationalists are basically all ex-Christians who are looking for the same thing but with the serial numbers filed off.
Some of them are even returning to presumably evangelical churches.
Sedevacantist Catholic or Russian Orthodox more likely
Apparently for all the cosplaying of alt righters going Russian Orthodox, not that many actually go to church. ( Which is an important part). Thankfully for the priests who would have to deal with the madmen.
Evangelicals with extra steps?
I could see the two fusing again or something.
More or less the plot of evangelion
Tired: I can speak directly to god and will be taken to paradise.
Wired: the god we will create will run a simulation that is indistinguishable from what I am currently (therefore it is literally me) so my thoughts right now are being read directly.
"There was a post, [pause], I forget who wrote it" <- the kind of thing I have said several times attempting to avoid leaking rationalist-evidence-bits.
gotta keep that power level under wraps
"Leaking rationalist-evidence-bits" is an unexpectedly top-tier euphemism for the aftermath of digesting Wendy's chili
We're potentially one election - and one big mac-related cardiac arrest - away from our first nooticer president. The American Experiment is on the verge of failure.
Or people could take away different things, especially since post-2014 (?) Scott approaches controversial issues much more cautiously and deliberately made known (Kolmogorov) that he was never going to fully honest around certain topics, inviting (deliberately or not, accurate or not) Straussian readings.
Ugh. These people seem sad and they make me sad.
What is controversial about Kolmogorov.
I'm pretty sure they're referencing an old ssc post on "kolmogorov complicity" - referencing the Soviet scientist who either spoke out against the purges and got gulag'd or who realized that they were bad but didn't say anything to avoid getting gulag'd and tried to protect his peers from the same fate. I forget if he was the example to follow or the counterexample, and I can't be arsed to look it up.
Now imagine if instead of a Soviet citizen trying to steer your people away from stalinism you were a fascist living in a broadly progressive culture looking to steer the world away from liberalism and towards Yarvin and friends. I try not to go down the conspiracy rabbit hole, but I'm not sure how Scott's output meaningfully differs from what such a person would write. Honestly if he hasn't written the kolmogorov complicity post outlining the whole concept I don't know if I'd be more or less inclined to think he's doing it actively.
Self-reply because a few hours later I could be arsed after all, and what I found was confusing.
To start with, this wasn't a scooter original; it was a response to a post by a different Scott A, and according to a very brief examination (I read both the Wikipedia article and the talk page) it looks like it's based on some questionable history. The story is that Andrey Kolmogorov kept quiet and used his influence to shelter Jewish academics and others from persecution under the purges. However, the most noteworthy example of his actions during the purges were his active testimony in the prosecution of his doctoral advisor, Nikolas Luzin. There's some ambiguity about why he participated but the two theories appear to be that the cops forced him to do it by blackmailing him about a (historically disputed/unconfirmed) gay relationship he was in or that the whole thing was driven by personal animosity between Luzin and his students. Notably after being convicted it seems like Luzin wasn't enough of a threat to Stalin to actually be properly disappeared or even fully removed from academia.
I don't know enough about the relevant history to make a reasonable determination as to who's right, but it's telling that neither story meaningfully supports the idea that the Scotts seem to be pitching of keeping your head down and muddling through to protect you and yours under authoritarianism. If that "Kolmogorov Option" exists it's only because you're in a decently liberal society. Otherwise the authoritarian power of the state will be used against you either for their own purpose or as a tool by whoever can catch their ear and doesn't like you, and all your attempts to avoid being the nail that sticks out will have been pointless.
Sweet: Comments talking about the specific situation of JD Vance referencing an SSC post.
Not Sweet: Any other references to JD Vance about anything unrelated, including the upcoming election, per the culture war rule.
I probably shouldn’t be looking for meaning in a rule that’s designed so that none of Scott’s fans associate him with the fascist shit he constantly and intentionally platforms, but what the fuck is this supposed to mean? don’t bring up the only reason anyone including Joe Rogan gives a fuck about JD Vance?
I especially want to be sure that everyone here is aware that the video thumbnail clearly shows that JD Vance was not seated upon, or otherwise interacting with, a couch. JD Vance was calmly seated in a standard office chair for the duration of this interview. Any posts containing out-of-context references to couches will be dealt with vigorously.
What a bastardization of that post, and Scott's general views on the subject
Can someone summarize how this is a big misinterpretation or mistake?
I'm not in any way MAGA or trumpy or a culture war person [sure you are. E: one sort by controversial later and they are indeed a culture war person not a full time one but still], but I'm a long time SSC reader and I thought the post/article was about the fascinating and complete sorta morhph/takeover of the civic "ethos" or civic religion of the elite bluebloods of the USA.
From veneration of founders and founding fathers (up through Abe Lincoln, etc) as the sorta civic glue and religion that we are brought up on, to now embracing LGBTQ+ (not much emphasis on boring normal "L" and "G" [dog barks]) through parades, flags, police cars, crosswalks, holidayds, add campaigns, corporate slogans and logos, etc.
Is this not how most readers understood the article?
Hope this makes some sscers reconsider being a fan of scotts writing. (And yes there was pushback in the replies)
not much emphasis on boring normal “L” and “G”
"Look I'm not really saying G-word and L-word are normal, but I might be willing to invite them to my BBQs if they never mention it, hate rainbows, and allow straight people to cut in line ahead of them as a civic duty."
Also wait is not even "B" 'normal' enough for this guy?
one sort by controversial later and they are indeed a culture war person
Instant regret.
This is asked in all sincerity: Why is there a coherent “community” of lesbians, gays, and transgender people? What is the important linking commonality that makes those groups into a community?
Gee I wonder. Also new rule whenever someone posts that they're asking something in sincerity or just wanting to understand or "confused", you're allowed to laugh in their face before they can finish. Seriously does anyone even fall for this anymore? It's so obvious.
They are also concerned about t levels in athletes, and IQ comes up. Which he defends with "If you think none of these tests are actually measuring anything of value, you must need to explain why they correlate so well with life outcomes related to cognition."
I think a problem with ssc people is that they dont realize they are culture warriors.
life outcomes related to cognition
My sides.
Me acing Raven's progressive matrix tests: Haha fuck yeah!!! Yes!!
Me dropping out of uni: Well this fucking sucks. What the fuck.
i see no evidence they don't realise just fine
Yeah considering various culture war posts are clearly still up, including ones calling progressives going crazy it all is a lot of plausible deniability.
Kinda stretching the definition of "plausible". It's less about external deniability and more about internal rejection. They want to avoid thinking of themselves as fascist-adjacent right-wing loons without giving up on being one
B-but homophobia is a social phenomenon. It's not real (genetic)!
They don’t think of bisexuals as including married monogamous people who just so happen to be bisexual. It’s a thing. They want to paint the queer community’s “normal people” as “unfortunately exclusively attracted to the same gender”
And yeah some people really want to find a reason to exclude trans people and not acknowledge that we’ve always been part of our communities.
It's not that bi isn't "normal-enough". The half-clever shitheels have been trying to split off bisexuality under the guise of "they could pass so they aren't really oppressed like homosexuals". Keeping people divided to make it easier to oppress them and all that. Then you get people like this who probably have no conscious awareness of that intentional strategy but have been stewed in this shit-pot enough that they talk in terms of lesbian-gay with out even noticing.
They don’t like bisexuals.
Regarding I appreciate he takes a moment here and there to read reddit and sees the content on this sub. Do you think tim walz does?
ahahahahahahahahahahahahh
The arguments in favour of Walz increase without bound.
Ya know, we used to joke about Ted Cruz being an alien and recording the shape of people's skulls, as if that were unusual.
Ted Cruz For Human President was a different time.
Well, he was already practically an SS-Mann without the neck lapels, so why be surprised about this?
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.]