5 ms·

The activists trying to get him banned are not achieving anything useful. They are raising awareness of the man, his online persona "Moldbug", and the writings

The activists trying to get him banned are not achieving anything useful. They are raising awareness of the man, his online persona "Moldbug", and the writings of that persona. This is the Streisand effect. If your goal is to get fewer people to read his views, then causing drama around him is completely counterproductive. I only heard about him from the previous drama (Strange Loop), and more people are hearing about him for the first time now. And he's not writing under that persona anymore. There is no stream of new articles coming out. The only news about him is when activists try to get him banned.

erichocean 11y ago
In addition, Yarvin may be wrong, but he's also wrong in (at least to me) a unique way. Ironically, what little I read of his when he was linked to by Scott Alexander at Slater Star Codex awhile back made me appreciate the US bureaucracy a lot more than I had prior to reading him. If anything, I went away feeling much more comfortable with how the current US government operates day to day and far less troubled by how little effect "democracy" actually has in this country. I doubt that's what Yarvin intended, of course, but if I had just heard "racist" and "bigot" and shunned him entirely, as many people seem to think I should have, I'd be less informed today and substantially less positive about our government. I'm glad I didn't.
ankushnarula 11y ago
I had heard of Yarvin and dismissed him last year. But thanks to this controversy, I've spent many hours reading his writing in the past week. Although I vehemently disagree with his technocratic conclusions I found his willingness to think openly refreshing - particularly for someone who grew up and lives in a viscously egalitarian environment. My takeaway is that we all censor our own thinking because of fear of groupthink and banishment.
colllectorof 11y ago
> If your goal is to get fewer people to read his views, then causing drama around him is completely counterproductive. If, however, your goal is to attract attention to yourself, it's a wonderfully effective strategy.

erichocean 11y ago

In addition, Yarvin may be wrong, but he's also wrong in (at least to me) a unique way. Ironically, what little I read of his when he was linked to by Scott Alexander at Slater Star Codex awhile back made me appreciate the US bureaucracy a lot more than I had prior to reading him. If anything, I went away feeling much more comfortable with how the current US government operates day to day and far less troubled by how little effect "democracy" actually has in this country. I doubt that's what Yarvin intended, of course, but if I had just heard "racist" and "bigot" and shunned him entirely, as many people seem to think I should have, I'd be less informed today and substantially less positive about our government. I'm glad I didn't.

ankushnarula 11y ago

I had heard of Yarvin and dismissed him last year. But thanks to this controversy, I've spent many hours reading his writing in the past week. Although I vehemently disagree with his technocratic conclusions I found his willingness to think openly refreshing - particularly for someone who grew up and lives in a viscously egalitarian environment. My takeaway is that we all censor our own thinking because of fear of groupthink and banishment.

colllectorof 11y ago

> If your goal is to get fewer people to read his views, then causing drama around him is completely counterproductive. If, however, your goal is to attract attention to yourself, it's a wonderfully effective strategy.