> but I'm curious as to what passes as rectifying his behavior. What would he have to do? Admit the worldview is wrong and he was mistaken, then hold that view

> but I'm curious as to what passes as rectifying his behavior. What would he have to do? Admit the worldview is wrong and he was mistaken, then hold that view publicly and without recantation for a reasonable sum of time. But that's for me. Other people may have different standards. Forgiveness is not something that calendars well. > He said he wouldn't. Until he does, I'll believe him. Maybe I'm a pushover for thinking so, but I also think people are innocent until proven guilty. He says some shitty things, but I don't think he'll say them on stage. And if he does, then he gets kicked out. Ignoring his existing behavior and its duration is not a logical or reasonable act. It is a luxury you can express because his beliefs do not deny your essential humanity. > And because of that, I'm going to believe Moldbug. I hate that I have to, but I think I can logically defend it, with a lack of further evidence. (I have to because I can. If I can't, I won't.) You do not have to. You've chosen to ignore his writing. You've chosen to ignore his reported and verifiable actions. You've chosen to ignore the people hurt by those actions. > If someone says something stupid, by God, let them shout their idiocy, so that we may hear it and strike it down with our logic and our facts. How often do black people have to refute people who claim they're sub human before you're satisfied? You should let them know what they're on the hook for, if that's evidently the rule. > that he and what he represents is actually harmful. None of this is about neoreaction. No one has mentioned neoreactionaries. That he believes in an authoritarian government or all but fetishizes small corporate structure is supremely boring and unoriginal, he's repeating the same arguments about essential quality that we saw in the Victorian Era. His "biodiversity" doctrine is the problem. And that's not a belief shared by all neoreactionaries (and I know a few who vehemently deny that this is a required tenant). Racism is not politics, racism is not religion. Racism is hate. You keep trying to sneak in this equivocation like I won't notice. Like somehow if you say it often enough we'll all forget this is the central point of this entire discussion. It is the same moral and ethical cowardice that filled the original blog post. > Even if you consider my views misguided or wrong, do they at least follow logically? No. You have willfully discarded the evidence, discarded Occam's razor for a strained equivocation that wouldn't hold up in a first year college philosophy class. You have further attempted to take a weak form of censure (i.e., "We decline to have you speak at this conference, though you may still attend.") and classify this into a rejection of that person's humanity and then pretended this is identical to Yarvin's views towards black people. At worst, that's disingenuous. At best, it lacks even a shred of human empathy. I'm certainly done talking to you now.