8 ms·

> The "leader" is an avowed racist and nasty person in general. Oh, good. This again. Curtis has stated publicly, "I am not an 'outspoken advocate for slavery,

by adbge 10y ago

> The "leader" is an avowed racist and nasty person in general. Oh, good. This again. Curtis has stated publicly, "I am not an 'outspoken advocate for slavery,' a racist, a sexist or a fascist." See: https://medium.com/@curtis.yarvin/why-you-should-come-to-lambdaconf-anyway-35ff8cd4fb9d#.qyt5cdzh3 https://medium.com/@curtis.yarvin/why-you-should-come-to-lam...

SwellJoe 10y ago
"I'm not racist, but..."
- yarvin9 10y ago
  "I'm not a communist, but..."
  - SwellJoe 10y ago
    I mean, it is possible that hundreds, possibly thousands, of people have misinterpreted your writing on colonialism, human biodiversity, etc. However, you seem to be smart and a better than average writer (if florid, at times). It seems like someone of your intelligence and writing ability would be able to make a point effectively, without so many misunderstandings. But, I hope that I have misunderstood your writing on those subjects.
zardgiv 10y ago
He also claims that some ethnic groups are genetically predisposed to being good slaves. Please think critically about this, instead of just saying "well, he says he's not racist!"
- lhnz 10y ago
  He tried to explain that opinion further: "The ability to survive as an agricultural slave is a talent." I've no idea whether Spaniards and Englishmen really did find Indians unfit for slavery but I guess the argument that is being made is that more of them might have been kept alive if they were able to provide greater economic value to their conquerors. Sick, I know. Agree that it's not an opinion fit to be voiced in modern society, however, it doesn't seem to be the opinion that people are trying to cast it under. [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/4bxf6f/im_curtis_yarvin_developer_of_urbit_ama/d1dlkjd https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/4bxf6f/im_curtis_yarv...
  - cwyers 10y ago
    > He tried to explain that opinion further: "The ability to survive as an agricultural slave is a talent." Oh, well, that makes everything better.
    - lhnz 10y ago
      Not sure if you disagree with me or if you're just being sarcastic. Being enslaved is an awful fate but it is a hell of a lot better than being slaughtered because your oppressors can't find a use for you.
      - cwyers 10y ago
        You may think that such a statement is merely logical, but it becomes rather something else when one, like Moldbug, has a long history of rhetoric where it seems pretty clear his sympathies are with the oppressors.
        lhnz 10y ago
        No, it's not merely logical, it's instrumental. Curtis Yarvin had a bone to pick with progressive society. I think it's highly likely that he still thinks it is ignorant, just as it does of him. However, I don't think misconstruing his words is a good attack. The dust eventually settles.
gjm11 10y ago
Anyone can say they aren't an outspoken advocate for slavery. Take a look at this http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/why-carlyle-matters.html http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/why-c... and see whether you find it plausible to say that the author is not an outspoken advocate for slavery.
- justadude1 10y ago
  I have read it and I don't think the author is an outspoken advocate of slavery. The passage most frequently cited as evidence of this charge is: Thus, Spaniards and Englishmen in the Americas in the 17th and earlier centuries, whose sense of political correctness was negligible, found that Africans tended to make good slaves and Indians did not. This broad pattern of observation is most parsimoniously explained by genetic differences. A charitable reading of this, in my mind, goes: Some slavers had an opinion about who made good slaves and who didn't. If one wanted to rationalize a basis for that opinion, which historically existed, the easiest/laziest answer would be genetic traits common to the populations in question Check the definition of "parsimonious" and assume the author used it on purpose.
  - blacksmith_tb 10y ago
    It's a very strange interpretation, especially given that there is a strong body of historical sociology on exactly this question. I'm thinking primarily of Orlando Patterson's _Slavery and Social Death_ - which would suggest that while Native Americans could potentially escape back to their people, African slaves had a much harder time alone, which was precisely the slavers' plan.
    - justadude1 10y ago
      No doubt you are right. I'm sure the slavers had all sorts of tactics, and opinions about both their tactics and the enslaved, which were wrong. The author seems to be positing the "easiest" explanation for why a particular opinion took hold among the slavers. Personally, my parsimonious explanation would be groupthink/received wisdom. Which, if it had to have a "legit" origin, was probably a multitude of factors such as you describe. But, I'm not the author, and was just trying to explain why I don't think that passage is the heinous smoking gun that so many people think it is.
kungfooguru 10y ago
Actually, he writes pretty clearly in this post that he is a racist. He simply claims he isn't racist because he says while whites are smarter than Blacks that doesn't make them 'superior', just having higher IQs... So yes, he is a racist, but also stupid.
- Karunamon 10y ago
  Statistically, at least last I checked, that statement is absolutely correct. The reasons for which is a matter of some debate, but the fact will resist any and all efforts to change it by way of insulting its speaker. Were it someone relating this in a less analytical way, that sentence would read "People with higher IQs are not necessarily 'superior'". Which is also true, as it happens.
  - joeykrug 10y ago
    Yep it is statistically correct. For anyone interested in the potential reasons: one of the most posited ones is that the creators of the tests are inherently biased. i.e. if someone creating an IQ test is a white male, chances are white males will have an advantage on the test. This has some degree of experimental evidence behind it, I remember in one of my psych classes we learned about a study where test creators tried to create tests [and succeeded] where certain races or locales would score higher [primarily by having people in those places or people of that race create the tests]. It's very hard to create a "general intelligence" test that isn't biased in some fashion [and many say it's impossible]
    - toxic_throwaway 10y ago
      > if someone creating an IQ test is a white male, chances are white males will have an advantage on the test But why and how would white males consistently create culturally biased tests which advantage East Asians? > It's very hard to create a "general intelligence" test that isn't biased in some fashion [and many say it's impossible] Tests of reaction time are probably not culturally biased: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_chronometry#Mental_chronometry_and_cognitive_ability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_chronometry#Mental_chro...
carapace 10y ago
To me the parts of that document that treat on race show that this guy believes that races differ in IQ. That's racist.
- Melchizedek 10y ago
  It's simply a fact that ethnic groups differ in IQ.
  - carapace 10y ago
    I've met a lot of black people, but I've never met the black race. I've met a lot of white people, but I've never met the white race. I've never met a race and I don't expect to. I've met stupid people and smart people and a whole lot of people who were stupid one way and smart another, but I've never met anyone with an IQ and I don't expect I ever will.
    - toxic_throwaway 10y ago
      Or as one notorious racist once put it: '"As for "race," you can learn way more about someone from a minute of conversation than from a full genome sequence -- even if we knew how to decode the information in the sequence, which we don't.'
    - swsieber 10y ago
      Ooo, I'm jumping into the firepit here. I haven't even read the article. But if he's talking about what happened to groups of people, isn't it correct then to talk about characteristics of groups of people? Normally, I would stay away from stereotypes and generalizations, and yet aggregate characteristics are useful about talking about what happens to groups of people. The real trouble comes when you try to apply an aggregate observation to the individual. You can't. That's the racist bit. Edit: Another problem is, and what we've seen here, is that observations or opinions about groups are often used to evaluate a member of said group when met. Curse our brains for taking shortcuts. Also, I probably should have asked this upfront - are you up in arms about the construct of IQ, or the suggestion that that a group of people might differ in a particular characteristic?

by adbge 10y ago

SwellJoe 10y ago

"I'm not racist, but..."

yarvin9 10y ago
"I'm not a communist, but..."
- SwellJoe 10y ago
  I mean, it is possible that hundreds, possibly thousands, of people have misinterpreted your writing on colonialism, human biodiversity, etc. However, you seem to be smart and a better than average writer (if florid, at times). It seems like someone of your intelligence and writing ability would be able to make a point effectively, without so many misunderstandings. But, I hope that I have misunderstood your writing on those subjects.

zardgiv 10y ago

He also claims that some ethnic groups are genetically predisposed to being good slaves. Please think critically about this, instead of just saying "well, he says he's not racist!"

lhnz 10y ago
He tried to explain that opinion further: "The ability to survive as an agricultural slave is a talent." I've no idea whether Spaniards and Englishmen really did find Indians unfit for slavery but I guess the argument that is being made is that more of them might have been kept alive if they were able to provide greater economic value to their conquerors. Sick, I know. Agree that it's not an opinion fit to be voiced in modern society, however, it doesn't seem to be the opinion that people are trying to cast it under. [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/4bxf6f/im_curtis_yarvin_developer_of_urbit_ama/d1dlkjd https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/4bxf6f/im_curtis_yarv...
- cwyers 10y ago
  > He tried to explain that opinion further: "The ability to survive as an agricultural slave is a talent." Oh, well, that makes everything better.
  - lhnz 10y ago
    Not sure if you disagree with me or if you're just being sarcastic. Being enslaved is an awful fate but it is a hell of a lot better than being slaughtered because your oppressors can't find a use for you.
    - cwyers 10y ago
      You may think that such a statement is merely logical, but it becomes rather something else when one, like Moldbug, has a long history of rhetoric where it seems pretty clear his sympathies are with the oppressors.
      - lhnz 10y ago
        No, it's not merely logical, it's instrumental. Curtis Yarvin had a bone to pick with progressive society. I think it's highly likely that he still thinks it is ignorant, just as it does of him. However, I don't think misconstruing his words is a good attack. The dust eventually settles.

gjm11 10y ago

Anyone can say they aren't an outspoken advocate for slavery. Take a look at this http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/why-carlyle-matters.html http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/why-c... and see whether you find it plausible to say that the author is not an outspoken advocate for slavery.

justadude1 10y ago
I have read it and I don't think the author is an outspoken advocate of slavery. The passage most frequently cited as evidence of this charge is: Thus, Spaniards and Englishmen in the Americas in the 17th and earlier centuries, whose sense of political correctness was negligible, found that Africans tended to make good slaves and Indians did not. This broad pattern of observation is most parsimoniously explained by genetic differences. A charitable reading of this, in my mind, goes: Some slavers had an opinion about who made good slaves and who didn't. If one wanted to rationalize a basis for that opinion, which historically existed, the easiest/laziest answer would be genetic traits common to the populations in question Check the definition of "parsimonious" and assume the author used it on purpose.
- blacksmith_tb 10y ago
  It's a very strange interpretation, especially given that there is a strong body of historical sociology on exactly this question. I'm thinking primarily of Orlando Patterson's _Slavery and Social Death_ - which would suggest that while Native Americans could potentially escape back to their people, African slaves had a much harder time alone, which was precisely the slavers' plan.
  - justadude1 10y ago
    No doubt you are right. I'm sure the slavers had all sorts of tactics, and opinions about both their tactics and the enslaved, which were wrong. The author seems to be positing the "easiest" explanation for why a particular opinion took hold among the slavers. Personally, my parsimonious explanation would be groupthink/received wisdom. Which, if it had to have a "legit" origin, was probably a multitude of factors such as you describe. But, I'm not the author, and was just trying to explain why I don't think that passage is the heinous smoking gun that so many people think it is.

kungfooguru 10y ago

Actually, he writes pretty clearly in this post that he is a racist. He simply claims he isn't racist because he says while whites are smarter than Blacks that doesn't make them 'superior', just having higher IQs... So yes, he is a racist, but also stupid.

Karunamon 10y ago
Statistically, at least last I checked, that statement is absolutely correct. The reasons for which is a matter of some debate, but the fact will resist any and all efforts to change it by way of insulting its speaker. Were it someone relating this in a less analytical way, that sentence would read "People with higher IQs are not necessarily 'superior'". Which is also true, as it happens.
- joeykrug 10y ago
  Yep it is statistically correct. For anyone interested in the potential reasons: one of the most posited ones is that the creators of the tests are inherently biased. i.e. if someone creating an IQ test is a white male, chances are white males will have an advantage on the test. This has some degree of experimental evidence behind it, I remember in one of my psych classes we learned about a study where test creators tried to create tests [and succeeded] where certain races or locales would score higher [primarily by having people in those places or people of that race create the tests]. It's very hard to create a "general intelligence" test that isn't biased in some fashion [and many say it's impossible]
  - toxic_throwaway 10y ago
    > if someone creating an IQ test is a white male, chances are white males will have an advantage on the test But why and how would white males consistently create culturally biased tests which advantage East Asians? > It's very hard to create a "general intelligence" test that isn't biased in some fashion [and many say it's impossible] Tests of reaction time are probably not culturally biased: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_chronometry#Mental_chronometry_and_cognitive_ability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_chronometry#Mental_chro...

carapace 10y ago

To me the parts of that document that treat on race show that this guy believes that races differ in IQ. That's racist.

Melchizedek 10y ago
It's simply a fact that ethnic groups differ in IQ.
- carapace 10y ago
  I've met a lot of black people, but I've never met the black race. I've met a lot of white people, but I've never met the white race. I've never met a race and I don't expect to. I've met stupid people and smart people and a whole lot of people who were stupid one way and smart another, but I've never met anyone with an IQ and I don't expect I ever will.
  - toxic_throwaway 10y ago
    Or as one notorious racist once put it: '"As for "race," you can learn way more about someone from a minute of conversation than from a full genome sequence -- even if we knew how to decode the information in the sequence, which we don't.'
  - swsieber 10y ago
    Ooo, I'm jumping into the firepit here. I haven't even read the article. But if he's talking about what happened to groups of people, isn't it correct then to talk about characteristics of groups of people? Normally, I would stay away from stereotypes and generalizations, and yet aggregate characteristics are useful about talking about what happens to groups of people. The real trouble comes when you try to apply an aggregate observation to the individual. You can't. That's the racist bit. Edit: Another problem is, and what we've seen here, is that observations or opinions about groups are often used to evaluate a member of said group when met. Curse our brains for taking shortcuts. Also, I probably should have asked this upfront - are you up in arms about the construct of IQ, or the suggestion that that a group of people might differ in a particular characteristic?