3 ms·

On your ps: "Reactionary" is originally a definition of a political and social stance essentially characterized as opposed to some or all of the idea of social

On your ps: "Reactionary" is originally a definition of a political and social stance essentially characterized as opposed to some or all of the idea of social and economic reforms put forth during the French Revolution. It has subsequently evolved into a sort of a catch term for a position somewhere near authoritarianism and a specific type of social conservatism. It's often applied to counter-revolutionary types as well, depending on context. This is a label Scott has earned through his work.

nkurz 6y ago
Now that the crowds have left, I'll offer an addendum. The odd part about calling it a "reactionary blog" is that part of Scott's early notoriety was for being an anti-reactionary on Less Wrong, a blog that had a lot of neo-reactionary support. In particular, he's the author of the "The Anti-Reactionary FAQ (or, Against Moldbug)": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6585715 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6585715. Unfortunately, it's hard to link to right now, as it disappeared along with the blog. Archive.org has a download in an odd format, but no preview: https://archive.org/details/perma_cc_49D9-R67Y https://archive.org/details/perma_cc_49D9-R67Y. I haven't read it recently, and thus can't summarize, so perhaps it reinforces your belief. From one of your other comments, I don't think I agree that "No one can really dispute that there is at least one frighteningly racist piece of work and at least one frighteningly sexist piece of work we can all point to from SSC." Or rather, I'd agree if we are to include all the comments written by others on the site, but I probably do not if we are to consider only things Scott wrote himself. This may be because I probably tend to different definitions of "racism" and "sexism" than you. I'm guessing you might feel it applies to almost all claims that one race or sex is statistically different than another, whereas I tend to reserve it for personal discrimination against individuals for belonging to a particular class. Thus, I don't feel that Charles Murray is racist, or that Larry Summers is sexist, at least not for the reasons that they are generally accused. As a result, I don't agree that defending Scott implies 'that writers who write racist material have a "right" to not be called to task if that's financially damaging', unless we're using a definition of racism that assumes "everyone is a little bit racist". Rather, I think honest discussion of race and sex include discussion of the possibility that there are genetic differences in intelligence --- as well as discussing the alternatives that the tests are flawed, that maybe there aren't actually any measured differences, or that the differences may be purely cultural or environmental. While there are risks and downsides to this discussion, I think the societal effects of prohibiting the discussion are even worse. I do appreciate your responses so far, though.

nkurz 6y ago

Now that the crowds have left, I'll offer an addendum. The odd part about calling it a "reactionary blog" is that part of Scott's early notoriety was for being an anti-reactionary on Less Wrong, a blog that had a lot of neo-reactionary support. In particular, he's the author of the "The Anti-Reactionary FAQ (or, Against Moldbug)": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6585715 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6585715. Unfortunately, it's hard to link to right now, as it disappeared along with the blog. Archive.org has a download in an odd format, but no preview: https://archive.org/details/perma_cc_49D9-R67Y https://archive.org/details/perma_cc_49D9-R67Y. I haven't read it recently, and thus can't summarize, so perhaps it reinforces your belief. From one of your other comments, I don't think I agree that "No one can really dispute that there is at least one frighteningly racist piece of work and at least one frighteningly sexist piece of work we can all point to from SSC." Or rather, I'd agree if we are to include all the comments written by others on the site, but I probably do not if we are to consider only things Scott wrote himself. This may be because I probably tend to different definitions of "racism" and "sexism" than you. I'm guessing you might feel it applies to almost all claims that one race or sex is statistically different than another, whereas I tend to reserve it for personal discrimination against individuals for belonging to a particular class. Thus, I don't feel that Charles Murray is racist, or that Larry Summers is sexist, at least not for the reasons that they are generally accused. As a result, I don't agree that defending Scott implies 'that writers who write racist material have a "right" to not be called to task if that's financially damaging', unless we're using a definition of racism that assumes "everyone is a little bit racist". Rather, I think honest discussion of race and sex include discussion of the possibility that there are genetic differences in intelligence --- as well as discussing the alternatives that the tests are flawed, that maybe there aren't actually any measured differences, or that the differences may be purely cultural or environmental. While there are risks and downsides to this discussion, I think the societal effects of prohibiting the discussion are even worse. I do appreciate your responses so far, though.