6 ms·
> > He denounced the neoreactionaries, the anti-democratic, often racist movement popularized by Curtis Yarvin. But he also gave them a platform. His “blog roll
by comex 6y ago
> > He denounced the neoreactionaries, the anti-democratic, often racist movement popularized by Curtis Yarvin. But he also gave them a platform. His “blog roll” — the blogs he endorsed — included the work of Nick Land, a British philosopher whose writings on race, genetics and intelligence have been embraced by white nationalists.
> So he denounced the works of one person who believes bad things, but he also linked to a second person, who may or may not believe bad things, but is liked by a third group of people who also believe bad things, so...logically...that must mean he actually does...support the first person? Despite denouncing them, because he didn't link to them, which proves...something…?
Nowhere in the paragraph you quoted does it allege Scott supported Curtis Yarvin personally. What it implies is that Nick Land is one of the "neoreactionaries", which, according to Wikipedia [1], he is.
The "embraced by white nationalists" part is a bit more tricky. It does imply that Land's writings are bad because white nationalists like them (more than others do). In the abstract, of course, this is not necessarily true.
Perhaps it's just a coincidence that white nationalists like him, or he's just a symbol; one can like country music without liking conservatism. (But it's unlikely he's merely a symbol when he literally writes about race.)
Perhaps his writings are relevant but they're misinterpreting him; Social Darwinism does not implicate Darwin.
But a third possibility is that his writings are just racist – though perhaps cloaked, perhaps the motte in the metaphorical motte and bailey – and as such provide an intellectual foundation for white supremacy.
Personally, I'm not sure what the answer is, because I don't know much about these people. But my priors point to the third option as most likely, given how intellectual movements tend to be organized. Which means that the fact of his being embraced by white nationalists was informative, which means it was appropriate for the reporter to include it. Sure, if the reporter is omitting some critical evidence or context that would lead to an opposite conclusion, that would be unethical. But the reporter is not obliged to include every argument that could possibly be made in his defense, either.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Enlightenment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Enlightenment
- MikeUt 6y ago> Personally, I'm not sure what the answer is, because I don't know much about these people. If only a world-famous newspaper could look into this and find out, so that you would not have to guess.
- lliamander 6y agoBut instead we just have the NYT.
- comex 6y agoThe problem is that the answer is largely a matter of opinion. The article author could have simply labeled his writings as "racist" or "not racist", but newspaper articles traditionally stick to reporting sourced facts and quoted opinions and let the reader draw their own conclusion. Alternately, the author could have provided context about Land in the form of additional facts and opinions. This would undoubtedly make the article more informative, but it would also make it longer. There are plenty of other things the article could have added context about, but ultimately the format demands a certain length. I do think the article is suggesting that he's racist. Newspaper articles have to choose which facts and quotes to include and how to integrate them into a narrative, and those choices inevitably betray the author's opinions. In general, I think this phenomenon of hidden opinions is harmful. It's a downside of the traditional practice of separating factual articles from opinion, since it gives readers a false sense of having learned the objective truth when in fact what they've absorbed is partially someone's opinion. When newer media platforms choose to eschew the distinction between fact and opinion in favor of presenting an authentic but opinionated voice, there's merit in that. But I think there is also merit in the traditional approach of trying to preserve that distinction, even if the results are inevitably imperfect. I wouldn't want the New York Times to give up on it.
- trenchgun 6y agoIt is also ridiculous to smear Nick Land because he is "ebraced by white nationalists". For fucks sake, just read something Nick Land has written in recent years and let him smear himself. He literally argues for "hyper racism", composed of scientific racism and eugenics. He also has promoted Atomwaffen affiliated Order of Nine Angles. A literal neonazi terrorist network. A pathetic hit piece.
- nyolfen 6y agocitation? land has racist and extreme social-darwinist views but afaik he holds identitarian political movements in contempt, he is more of a nietzschean anti-human trying to usher in a machine god than anything like nazi politics
- tpush 6y agoRacism and extreme social-darwinistic views are pretty much the core of nazi thought.
- NovaJehovah 6y agoViolent revolution and utopianism were core beliefs of both Nazism and Bolshevism. Individual rights are a core belief of both social democratic liberalism and anarcho-capitalism. The existence of Satan is a core belief of both Christians and Satanists. A and B sharing core beliefs does not mean A == B.
- parineum 6y agoYou point stands but most Satanism actually doesn't actually believe in a literal Satan, they identify with him as an allegory. The largest sects, The Church of Satan (athiest) and the Satanic Temple (non-theist) don't have a belief in Satan as a deity. There is a subset that actually does though but they are a minority of a minority. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_Satanism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_Satanism
- Tuna-Fish 6y agoWhat I understand from his writings is that Scott feels that Nick land has made interesting observations and had novel new thoughts, and has then followed them off a cliff. For example, from Meditations on Moloch: [0] > But the thing about grail quests is – if you make a wrong turn two blocks away from your house, you end up at the corner store feeling mildly embarrassed. If you do almost everything right and then miss the very last turn, you end up being eaten by the legendary Black Beast of Aaargh whose ichorous stomach acid erodes your very soul into gibbering fragments. > As far as I can tell from reading his blog, Nick Land is the guy in that terrifying border region where he is smart enough to figure out several important arcane principles about summoning demon gods, but not quite smart enough to figure out the most important such principle, which is NEVER DO THAT. [0]: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/
- twic 6y agoThis is key. Nick Land is not fungible here, not either an interchangeable racist or an interchangeable cipher who some racists like. He's someone who started off as an interesting and creative thinker who had a lot of influence on the blob of lefty internet-flavoured critical theory philosophy stuff which still drives the online intellectual left [1], but then veered off into unproductive nastiness. I suppose the link is there because Scott Alexander thinks that he's written some stuff which is worth reading, and that readers of the blog will be able to distinguish that from the rubbish. Needless to say, this is completely outside a present-day NYT journalist's model of the world. [1] https://www.dazeddigital.com/artsandculture/article/10459/1/nick-land-mind-games https://www.dazeddigital.com/artsandculture/article/10459/1/...
- drak0n1c 6y agoWikipedia has long been unreliable when it comes to politically tangential articles, especially ones that cast characterizations. Wikipedia Cofounder Larry Sanger said so on his blog: https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/