3 ms·

Even with a very negative equivocation of "defender of chattel slavery," which I'm guessing -- I don't have the time or the spare IQ to decipher his writings --

Even with a very negative equivocation of "defender of chattel slavery," which I'm guessing -- I don't have the time or the spare IQ to decipher his writings -- is a hostile simplification, the right thing to do is to forgive him. The reaction to the news he'd be speaking was made of base disgust and deliberate malice. The venue's different, but the mindset of the complainers is similar, albeit not with the same proportions of raw cynicism. If it's not worth hashing out, then it wasn't worth objecting to a detail of a 7-day-old post in the first place. (Here's another example for the corpus: When Hillary Clinton was scheduled to speak at the RPI Commencement, there was no end to the whining by the College Republicans. This was in 2005.)

tptacek 11y ago
No, it is not a hostile simplification. Unfortunately, I believe I captured it pretty well. Unless you'd like to argue that he's playing a character when he writes as Mencius Moldbug. Apparently unlike you (and who can blame you?), I took some time to work through the writing.
- SamReidHughes4 11y ago
  I have paid my dues, thank you. Here is what is happening: His writing has evolved to be laced with honeypot objectionables (on top of general obfuscation) so that he can sit on his mountain, avoid direct refutation, and look down at people that obviously don't get what he's saying. That they conveniently map with his ur-self's tonal ambitions is icing on the cake. You're hitting a honeypot, flavored by all the pickup from his ur-self that's present in everything about what he chooses to write about. Your statement, which is about what he says, is not the true true (about what he says) because it's poisoned by what he is. You can unsimplify it back up to a lot of stuff that he doesn't say (in fact, stuff he doesn't believe he believes). If you have an alternate theory, I should point out that mine also explains Urbit. Does yours?
  - tptacek 11y ago
    I'm not interested, sorry.
    - SamReidHughes 11y ago
      Well, uh, thank you for absorbing my bimonthly spate of jackassery with grace.

tptacek 11y ago

No, it is not a hostile simplification. Unfortunately, I believe I captured it pretty well. Unless you'd like to argue that he's playing a character when he writes as Mencius Moldbug. Apparently unlike you (and who can blame you?), I took some time to work through the writing.

SamReidHughes4 11y ago
I have paid my dues, thank you. Here is what is happening: His writing has evolved to be laced with honeypot objectionables (on top of general obfuscation) so that he can sit on his mountain, avoid direct refutation, and look down at people that obviously don't get what he's saying. That they conveniently map with his ur-self's tonal ambitions is icing on the cake. You're hitting a honeypot, flavored by all the pickup from his ur-self that's present in everything about what he chooses to write about. Your statement, which is about what he says, is not the true true (about what he says) because it's poisoned by what he is. You can unsimplify it back up to a lot of stuff that he doesn't say (in fact, stuff he doesn't believe he believes). If you have an alternate theory, I should point out that mine also explains Urbit. Does yours?
- tptacek 11y ago
  I'm not interested, sorry.
  - SamReidHughes 11y ago
    Well, uh, thank you for absorbing my bimonthly spate of jackassery with grace.