10 ms·

This SSC piece has influenced a lot of my thinking. Christopher Hitchens wrote about "the narcissism of small differences," concept as well. There was another

This SSC piece has influenced a lot of my thinking. Christopher Hitchens wrote about "the narcissism of small differences," concept as well. There was another post on HN recently about a summary of Rene Girard, who extended this idea ("mimetic violence" in his style) with the inevitability of scapegoating neutral parties as an alternative to war. The rationalist community that SSC has represented may be walking right into that scapegoat role because they are viewed as compromised by the extreme right, and as a gateway drug by the extreme left. I would argue critics like figures associated with the so-called, "intellectual dark web," are being scapegoated by social media platforms for precisely the reasons Girard describes for picking scapegoats. There is no point in tracking down the worst extremists because they don't have enough political traction to represent "something being done," but popular, relatively moderate critics are sufficiently high profile figures to make an example of in the hope that it provides some defusing catharsis. I couldn't say how much predictive power that model has. Either de-platforming "works" because it delays sectarian conflict, or it delegitimizes discourse altogether and just accelerates it. We're going to find out anyway, and it appears we indeed live in interesting times.

pasabagi 7y ago
I think the problem most left-wing people would have with the rationalist thing is that left wing culture is a culture of reading, especially when it comes to philosophy. That's true from the most hardcore (for instance, YPG rebels in rojava are broadly united under Ocalan, who is first and foremost a thinker), to the most wishy-washy (most hippies will happily talk your ear off about Buddhism). So the problem with rationalism is kind of obvious in the name. Rationalism, if you read philosophy, already has a meaning. It means people who believe that rationality comes prior to experience. That's not the way the 'rationalists' are using it, and what's more, the way they are using it is kinda crude, even if we ignore the fact it displays a kind of illiteracy, or at least, a disinterest in the history of thought, to re-use a really common term in a totally unrelated way. That's also what comes across from the stuff they write. What I've read is clever, well written, well thought out, but also profoundly ignorant of the tradition of thinking about the topics they're interested in. You can't help but be crude if you just try a naive response, without first looking at how other people have addressed the problem at hand. So it comes across as the philosophical equivalent of that guy you met once who's convinced he has invented a new kind of maths without the number zero, because 'zero doesn't exist'. It might have been an interesting debate 2000 years ago, but things have moved on.
- quacked 7y ago
  You're a little incorrect, but understandably so; the term "rationalist" refers to "rational thinking", which in turn is a term snatched from Daniel Kahneman's book "Thinking Fast and Slow", which summarizes a great deal of revolutionary findings in the fields of cognitive psychology. However, I agree- they should have picked another name. "Rationalism" already exists. Furthermore, it's an arrogant name to have- calling your group "rational" implies that anyone who's not in your group is not rational.
  - edanm 7y ago
    You're wrong in your history there. Kahnemans book came out long after the online rationality group was built.
    - quacked 7y ago
      Ooh, you're right. I thought it came out closer to the actual date of his research.
  - mistermann 7y ago
    2 hour discussion between Daniel Kahneman and Sam Harris, well worth a listen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKLE3TmtFhY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKLE3TmtFhY
  - pasabagi 7y ago
    I don't understand. Rationalism in the philosophy world goes back to Descartes. I think that's when it was an explicit school of thought, perhaps a hundred years later at the most. I also rather like the philosophy distinction between rationalism and empricism (strangely enough, the online 'rationalists' seem to be empiricists) since it's a division between traditions with differing but obviously valuable approaches to how people know things - rather than one side simply taking the name to claim some kind of high ground. The name actually illustrates something distinctive about each group's thought.
    - 7y ago
stcredzero 7y ago
Either de-platforming "works" because it delays sectarian conflict Suppression doesn't work. It just reveals that the bosses who have control have you out-grouped if you're not one of their "faithful." delegitimizes discourse altogether and just accelerates it. One can think of Free Speech in this way: The whole purpose of Free Speech is to enshrine discourse. If there is Free Speech, then we can always fall back on discourse and talk it out. This is why, "Free Speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" is bankrupt. "Free Speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences," is just another way of saying, "Don't say that, or we will use force on you." It's a disappointment to see nonsense like "milkshaking" and "Punch a Nazi." These are just dress rehearsals to more serious political violence. These are signs of people being radicalized to the point, where they are going to abandon discourse and resort to violent conflict. I remember when teachers used to talk about how the democratic societies and the USA were better than places like the USSR: Instead of using force against dissidents, we had Free Speech. Now, society's conception of civics is devolving into, "There is a right way to think, and if you don't agree, we'll force you to!"
- eastWestMath 7y ago
  >Suppression doesn't work. It just reveals that the bosses who have control have you out-grouped if you're not one of their "faithful." I think that's a bit telling - people are, by and large, being deplatformed for hate speech. And while the US has free speech laws that more or less protect hate speech, it does not have laws obligating institutions (such as universities or social media companies) give these people a platform for hate speech. >It's a disappointment to see nonsense like "milkshaking" and "Punch a Nazi." These are just dress rehearsals to more serious political violence. These are signs of people being radicalized to the point, where they are going to abandon discourse and resort to violent conflict. Right, but the regular mass shootings by Ben Shapiro fans isn't a concern.
  - yourbandsucks 7y ago
    The issue is who's in charge of deciding it's hate speech? There's no impartial judicial system involved here, the people driving the deplatforming are self-appointed activists within these companies who are emotionally invested in 'doing something'. They're not moderate, or careful, or measured. That's not their nature.
peteretep 7y ago
> "intellectual dark web," are being scapegoated by social media platforms for precisely the reasons Girard describes for picking scapegoats This is a term that's meant to include both Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson. I suspect if she was alive today, it would also include Ayn Rand. If you're looking for complicated reasons why these figures are not taken seriously from an intellectual perspective, I suspect you are missing the simpler ones.
- whatshisface 7y ago
  It's not that they aren't being taken seriously, they're being taken immensely seriously. As serious as a foreign invasion, perhaps undeservedly.
- eli_gottlieb 7y ago
  I consistently find something utterly amazing in people fear-mongering about, say, Quilette magazine, as if they were printing scary evil propaganda rather than a bunch of boring articles complaining about college administrators nobody liked in the first place.
  - fullshark 7y ago
    It's not fear mongering, it's an attempt to label them as deficient/unworthy. Thus if you want to be SEEN as a serious intellectual (which is what most intellectually minded people actually want as opposed to interesting discussion) you don't pay them mind.
  - jcora 7y ago
    I mean they also publish in favor of 'human biodiversity' and then get lauded as a bastion of intellectual discussion by a large amount of people.
yourbandsucks 7y ago
The shitshow of good-faith yet downvoted posts below you is pretty illuminating, here.
aga98mtl 7y ago
> Either de-platforming "works" because it delays sectarian conflict, or it delegitimizes discourse altogether and just accelerates it. I think de-platforming works because the targeted author is actually just an entrepreneur riding the "hate" wave for profit. If there is no profit to be made, then they have something else better to do. All these guys can host their videos themselves, however without a free audience they can't make money.

pasabagi 7y ago

I think the problem most left-wing people would have with the rationalist thing is that left wing culture is a culture of reading, especially when it comes to philosophy. That's true from the most hardcore (for instance, YPG rebels in rojava are broadly united under Ocalan, who is first and foremost a thinker), to the most wishy-washy (most hippies will happily talk your ear off about Buddhism). So the problem with rationalism is kind of obvious in the name. Rationalism, if you read philosophy, already has a meaning. It means people who believe that rationality comes prior to experience. That's not the way the 'rationalists' are using it, and what's more, the way they are using it is kinda crude, even if we ignore the fact it displays a kind of illiteracy, or at least, a disinterest in the history of thought, to re-use a really common term in a totally unrelated way. That's also what comes across from the stuff they write. What I've read is clever, well written, well thought out, but also profoundly ignorant of the tradition of thinking about the topics they're interested in. You can't help but be crude if you just try a naive response, without first looking at how other people have addressed the problem at hand. So it comes across as the philosophical equivalent of that guy you met once who's convinced he has invented a new kind of maths without the number zero, because 'zero doesn't exist'. It might have been an interesting debate 2000 years ago, but things have moved on.

quacked 7y ago
You're a little incorrect, but understandably so; the term "rationalist" refers to "rational thinking", which in turn is a term snatched from Daniel Kahneman's book "Thinking Fast and Slow", which summarizes a great deal of revolutionary findings in the fields of cognitive psychology. However, I agree- they should have picked another name. "Rationalism" already exists. Furthermore, it's an arrogant name to have- calling your group "rational" implies that anyone who's not in your group is not rational.
- edanm 7y ago
  You're wrong in your history there. Kahnemans book came out long after the online rationality group was built.
  - quacked 7y ago
    Ooh, you're right. I thought it came out closer to the actual date of his research.
- mistermann 7y ago
  2 hour discussion between Daniel Kahneman and Sam Harris, well worth a listen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKLE3TmtFhY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKLE3TmtFhY
- pasabagi 7y ago
  I don't understand. Rationalism in the philosophy world goes back to Descartes. I think that's when it was an explicit school of thought, perhaps a hundred years later at the most. I also rather like the philosophy distinction between rationalism and empricism (strangely enough, the online 'rationalists' seem to be empiricists) since it's a division between traditions with differing but obviously valuable approaches to how people know things - rather than one side simply taking the name to claim some kind of high ground. The name actually illustrates something distinctive about each group's thought.
  - 7y ago

stcredzero 7y ago

Either de-platforming "works" because it delays sectarian conflict Suppression doesn't work. It just reveals that the bosses who have control have you out-grouped if you're not one of their "faithful." delegitimizes discourse altogether and just accelerates it. One can think of Free Speech in this way: The whole purpose of Free Speech is to enshrine discourse. If there is Free Speech, then we can always fall back on discourse and talk it out. This is why, "Free Speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" is bankrupt. "Free Speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences," is just another way of saying, "Don't say that, or we will use force on you." It's a disappointment to see nonsense like "milkshaking" and "Punch a Nazi." These are just dress rehearsals to more serious political violence. These are signs of people being radicalized to the point, where they are going to abandon discourse and resort to violent conflict. I remember when teachers used to talk about how the democratic societies and the USA were better than places like the USSR: Instead of using force against dissidents, we had Free Speech. Now, society's conception of civics is devolving into, "There is a right way to think, and if you don't agree, we'll force you to!"

eastWestMath 7y ago
>Suppression doesn't work. It just reveals that the bosses who have control have you out-grouped if you're not one of their "faithful." I think that's a bit telling - people are, by and large, being deplatformed for hate speech. And while the US has free speech laws that more or less protect hate speech, it does not have laws obligating institutions (such as universities or social media companies) give these people a platform for hate speech. >It's a disappointment to see nonsense like "milkshaking" and "Punch a Nazi." These are just dress rehearsals to more serious political violence. These are signs of people being radicalized to the point, where they are going to abandon discourse and resort to violent conflict. Right, but the regular mass shootings by Ben Shapiro fans isn't a concern.
- yourbandsucks 7y ago
  The issue is who's in charge of deciding it's hate speech? There's no impartial judicial system involved here, the people driving the deplatforming are self-appointed activists within these companies who are emotionally invested in 'doing something'. They're not moderate, or careful, or measured. That's not their nature.

peteretep 7y ago

> "intellectual dark web," are being scapegoated by social media platforms for precisely the reasons Girard describes for picking scapegoats This is a term that's meant to include both Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson. I suspect if she was alive today, it would also include Ayn Rand. If you're looking for complicated reasons why these figures are not taken seriously from an intellectual perspective, I suspect you are missing the simpler ones.

whatshisface 7y ago
It's not that they aren't being taken seriously, they're being taken immensely seriously. As serious as a foreign invasion, perhaps undeservedly.
eli_gottlieb 7y ago
I consistently find something utterly amazing in people fear-mongering about, say, Quilette magazine, as if they were printing scary evil propaganda rather than a bunch of boring articles complaining about college administrators nobody liked in the first place.
- fullshark 7y ago
  It's not fear mongering, it's an attempt to label them as deficient/unworthy. Thus if you want to be SEEN as a serious intellectual (which is what most intellectually minded people actually want as opposed to interesting discussion) you don't pay them mind.
- jcora 7y ago
  I mean they also publish in favor of 'human biodiversity' and then get lauded as a bastion of intellectual discussion by a large amount of people.

yourbandsucks 7y ago

The shitshow of good-faith yet downvoted posts below you is pretty illuminating, here.

aga98mtl 7y ago

> Either de-platforming "works" because it delays sectarian conflict, or it delegitimizes discourse altogether and just accelerates it. I think de-platforming works because the targeted author is actually just an entrepreneur riding the "hate" wave for profit. If there is no profit to be made, then they have something else better to do. All these guys can host their videos themselves, however without a free audience they can't make money.