4 ms·

Because they're so repugnant that they make reasonable people question why anyone would be willing to tolerate, let alone defend him. He's freely declared hims

by zorpner 10y ago

Because they're so repugnant that they make reasonable people question why anyone would be willing to tolerate, let alone defend him. He's freely declared himself so reprehensible that it impairs his ability to lead any project because it will inevitably attract this type of discussion. If you'd prefer this not to be the case, please outline what restrictions on free speech you'd like emplaced so that people would not be able to discuss his views.

ZenoArrow 10y ago
Stop with the ad hominem attacks and start posting something of substance. If you have examples of these 'repugnant' views then share them, I haven't seen anything that matches that description when read in context.
- JeremyBanks 10y ago
  I would benefit from this. I don't doubt that Curtis's views are probably offensive, but I haven't seen a clear description of them to conclude that for myself. I tried reading some of his writing, but it seemed so abstract and obfuscated that I gave up before understanding what he was trying to get across. I've seen one-sentence descriptions of his beliefs and they sound horrible, but I've also seen enough tweet-length mischaracterizations of others' beliefs to take those as accurate. Is there like an intermediate-level overview of Curtis's offensive beliefs, with a glossary and index? I'd be surprised if nobody's assembled one; it could make the ad hominems so much more effective.
  - ineptech 10y ago
    The closest thing I know of is Scott Alexander's Reactionary Philosophy in an Enormous, Planet-Sized Nutshell [1]. It's more of an essay/argument than an impartial overview, but (besides being a good read by one of the smartest and most interesting bloggers on earth) I think it's the most even-handed, neutral and informative thing you're likely to read about Yarvin's beliefs. (NB - the article refers to Yarvin as "Mencius Moldbug", his nom de plume for political ranting) [1] - http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/03/reactionary-philosophy-in-an-enormous-planet-sized-nutshell/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/03/reactionary-philosophy-...
    - JeremyBanks 10y ago
      Great! I love Scott Alexander's writing, so I'll definitely check this out. Thanks for the pointer.
    - ZenoArrow 10y ago
      > "I also reserve the right to edit comments that don’t quite reach that point but are noticeably in need of rephrasing." Wow, really? I'd consider that worse than removing comments.
mcphage 10y ago
> He's freely declared himself so reprehensible that it impairs his ability to lead any project because it will inevitably attract this type of discussion. He's incapable of leading a project because you're unwilling to control yourself?
- zorpner 10y ago
  Yup, failure to understand the simplest aspects of public discourse and narcissism to the point of putting one's own desire to spout a bunch of violent racist crap above any consideration for how it might impact people you want to work with is pretty disqualifiying for project leadership. He's incapable of leading a project because he's unwilling to control himself.
striking 10y ago
No one wants restrictions on free speech here. It's just boring to see the same thing over and over again. Why continuously bring it up? We've already had this discussion numerous times.

by zorpner 10y ago

ZenoArrow 10y ago

Stop with the ad hominem attacks and start posting something of substance. If you have examples of these 'repugnant' views then share them, I haven't seen anything that matches that description when read in context.

JeremyBanks 10y ago
I would benefit from this. I don't doubt that Curtis's views are probably offensive, but I haven't seen a clear description of them to conclude that for myself. I tried reading some of his writing, but it seemed so abstract and obfuscated that I gave up before understanding what he was trying to get across. I've seen one-sentence descriptions of his beliefs and they sound horrible, but I've also seen enough tweet-length mischaracterizations of others' beliefs to take those as accurate. Is there like an intermediate-level overview of Curtis's offensive beliefs, with a glossary and index? I'd be surprised if nobody's assembled one; it could make the ad hominems so much more effective.
- ineptech 10y ago
  The closest thing I know of is Scott Alexander's Reactionary Philosophy in an Enormous, Planet-Sized Nutshell [1]. It's more of an essay/argument than an impartial overview, but (besides being a good read by one of the smartest and most interesting bloggers on earth) I think it's the most even-handed, neutral and informative thing you're likely to read about Yarvin's beliefs. (NB - the article refers to Yarvin as "Mencius Moldbug", his nom de plume for political ranting) [1] - http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/03/reactionary-philosophy-in-an-enormous-planet-sized-nutshell/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/03/reactionary-philosophy-...
  - JeremyBanks 10y ago
    Great! I love Scott Alexander's writing, so I'll definitely check this out. Thanks for the pointer.
  - ZenoArrow 10y ago
    > "I also reserve the right to edit comments that don’t quite reach that point but are noticeably in need of rephrasing." Wow, really? I'd consider that worse than removing comments.

mcphage 10y ago

> He's freely declared himself so reprehensible that it impairs his ability to lead any project because it will inevitably attract this type of discussion. He's incapable of leading a project because you're unwilling to control yourself?

zorpner 10y ago
Yup, failure to understand the simplest aspects of public discourse and narcissism to the point of putting one's own desire to spout a bunch of violent racist crap above any consideration for how it might impact people you want to work with is pretty disqualifiying for project leadership. He's incapable of leading a project because he's unwilling to control himself.

striking 10y ago

No one wants restrictions on free speech here. It's just boring to see the same thing over and over again. Why continuously bring it up? We've already had this discussion numerous times.