10 points

This feels like someone setting up a novel-length strawman.

permalink
report
reply
8 points

Could practically feel him vibrating with righteous hatred during the “leftists have slave morality!” bit.

If only he’d read that article somebody wrote about how you should try to be charitable to your outgroup…

permalink
report
reply
7 points

can’t wait for his nuanced reading of anders breivik’s manifesto

permalink
report
reply
11 points

I ain’t reading all this. I don’t even know who Yglesias is.

My first thought: Man, why the fuck does the numbering of the sections annoy me so much?

Second thought: Ok, I’m skimming this because again fuck all these words. Looks like he’s trying to explore something about “master” and “slave” morality that I will not dig into because it’s probably a bunk formulation of thought. Why does Edward Teach, the pirate, come up? The section did not appear to explain it.

Final thought: Okay, I think I was right not to read any of this. Essentially, it is just a paean to some truly terrible people (Tate, Hanania, Ayn Rand etc.) in the form of a shaggy dog story, with Nietzche referenced a lot.

Anyway, now I’m fighting the urge to get drunk on scotch, listen to “No Surprises” by radiohead and walk into the fucking ocean

permalink
report
reply
7 points

Edward Teach is supposedly the pen name of The Last Psychiatrist who was sort of a precursor blog to slatestar, if only in the sense that it was a psychiatrist who was also a good writer, blogging about the human condition. He was doing parable-style short-form fiction way before slatescott, for instance.

While I don’t remember there being any particular ideological overlap, both him and siskind seem to scratch the same itch for a lot of people, and siskind claims to be a fan.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

If someone is talking in parables it’s a red flag for me dawg.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

He wasn’t usually. Another difference with siskind was that with TLP you mostly knew where you stood, or at least I don’t remember any near-end-of-text jumpscares where it’s revealed the whole thing was meant as really convoluted IQ apologetics, or some naive reframing of the latest EA embarrassment.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

good writer

I reject the implication that Slatescott is a good writer.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

He seems very aware of how writing works at least, and unlike EY some of his fiction is serviceable.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points
*

ideological overlap

Oh they absolutely are both infuriatingly coy reactionaries.

Here’s for instance a million words by TLP, and they all say “i hate women”.

I might actually hate TLP so much more, because he’s more seductive, better at that typical nietzschean flattery of the reader, and for some reason even people here tend to view him more positively.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

Wasn’t that like his last post ever though?

Him not being an overt eugenics enthusiast while also not being the popular face of AI scientology probably helps ingratiate him to people here. Additionally, even though admittedly I haven’t really bothered to revisit since he stopped posting like a decade ago, whatever overall sociopolitical agenda he might have had can’t have been as glaringly obvious as siskind’s, which can make for some inconsequential reading.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

I’m skimming this because again fuck all these words

fuck all these words

Perfect summary of Slate Star Codex.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

TRUE FACT: Matt Yglesias is the reason Bluesky has a block function

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I missed that(or have forgotten it already, a think which happens a lot with me re Yglesias. I have him mentally tagged as vague shithead, but never can recall why (and am aware this could be wrong)), tried a google search and couldn’t find anything, what is the story?

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

David told the story in a recent Tech Won’t Save Us episode, basically Matty boy came to BlueSky, everyone started laughing at him for his bad takes (as well they should), and Matty cried for a block function so long and intensely that they gave it to him so he’d shut the fuck up.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

Some right-wingers have responded to the piece, but their responses are mostly “but I like being bad and cruel” - which seems to prove Bulldog’s point.

I think we can do better - that it’s possible to make a case against “slave morality” that doesn’t rely on being pro-badness and cruelty.

Fuck me, you’re making me read Slatescott again. I can’t wait to see how he will case for badness and cruelty without relying on being pro badness and cruelty.

Skimmed a bit up to the discussion of architecture not being as impressive nowadays or something.

Ok here we go:

Tate has, in some sense, many good qualities. He’s strong, athletic, and motivated. He earned tens of millions of dollars through hustle and hard work. He’s charismatic and compelling and, before his arrest, was one of the Internet’s most iconic influencers. I think master morality has to approve of all these things.

“Hustle and hard work”? That’s what we’re gonna call being a sex trafficker?

Hand tipped here:

I would like to end up with an overall negative view of Tate. And if I do a simple calculation, (virtues - vices), then it seems like if his nonmoral virtues were strong enough, they could overcome the moral vices. If Tate was a really really good kickboxer, he might still end up in the black. It seems much more intuitive to say that no amount of nonmoral virtues can make up for his moral vices. But now we’re back at the full slave moralist package again! Some “compromise”!

If we accept that there are some vices that cannot be made up for by virtues, we might need to cancel someone. People might need to be held responsible for the things they do. So Scott cannot accept it. There has to be a way to let the baddies in as long as they’re actually doing important work.

You can argue “master morality is about being strong and good; slave morality is just about preserving your pathetic little feelings”. But most of life is people’s pathetic little feelings. People have proven over and over again that their decisions - about what to do, what to buy, who to vote for, even what to die for - depend more on what lets them feel dignity and self-respect than on any purely material considerations.

Slight of hand: now slave morality is all about feelings and master morality is about material needs. What the heck? We established that slave morality was based on the idea that masters inflicting real hardships on their peasants was bad, didn’t we? You could make the same argument about Scott morality (as described above) because the objective would be to allow you to feel good about supporting people who do bad things as long as they also do good things.

And speaking of slight of hand, this is going to be my pull quote:

Hanania is terrible at being right-wing.

permalink
report
reply
15 points

And if I do a simple calculation, (virtues - vices)

“…then I have shit for brains.”

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points
*

Tate has, in some sense, many good qualities. He’s strong, athletic, and motivated.

Really telling since none of those are good characteristics in the moral sense of “good”. Like what the fuck is “motivated” even doing there, Sauron was also extremely motivated, mate.

permalink
report
parent
reply

SneerClub

!sneerclub@awful.systems

Create post

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.]

Community stats

  • 182

    Monthly active users

  • 332

    Posts

  • 7.9K

    Comments