5 ms·

Yuck! What a ridiculous misrepresentation of the New York Times article. Go read it yourself. I think most people here are familiar enough with the "Rationalis

Yuck! What a ridiculous misrepresentation of the New York Times article. Go read it yourself. I think most people here are familiar enough with the "Rationalist" movement to be able to judge it on its own merits. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/13/technology/slate-star-codex-rationalists.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/13/technology/slate-star-cod... The Rationalist movement is deeply weird. It has curious connections with "race realists" and monarchists. It is deeply insular and rarely survives contact with mainstream scholarship. Eliezer Yudkowsky and other central figures are total crackpots. Any discussion of the movement that leaves those parts out is dishonest. The title is stupid. I'll give 'em that.

gipp 6y ago
Weird, undoubtedly. Think they are smarter than they are? Mostly, yes. "Aligned with race realists and monarchists (?)" Definitely not.
- xirbeosbwo1234 6y ago
  >"Aligned with race realists and monarchists (?)" Definitely not. Definitely yes. Ever heard of Moldbug? The dude who claimed the rule of Leopold II (yes, that Leopold II) would be better than our current government? I am not claiming that they are the same movement, but the Dark Enlightenment is closely related to the Rationalist movement. There is a great deal of cross-pollination. The New York Times article is a great jumping-off point to read about this connection! It has several relevant links, including this one that explicitly discusses the monarchists: https://techcrunch.com/2013/11/22/geeks-for-monarchy/ https://techcrunch.com/2013/11/22/geeks-for-monarchy/
  - rjsw 6y ago
    Can't see Leopold II being very popular in Silicon Valley, he would certainly reduce the demand for smartwatches.
    - jessaustin 6y ago
      OTOH, he'd get the cobalt mined on schedule...
  - Tuna-Fish 6y ago
    Yes, I have heard of Moldbug. In fact, from one of the ginormous blog posts on SSC where Scott tore his beliefs to shreds. You keep claiming that alt-right/monarchist movements have connections to rationalists, without any kind of proof or references to those connections. Which is exactly what the shitty NYT article did. Can you actually show how they are related, instead of just claiming they are?
stupidcar 6y ago
I've read it. Almost the first thing I saw was: "Slate Star Codex was a window into the Silicon Valley psyche." This is just so obviously, insanely wrong that it's impossible to take anything else in the article seriously.
- xirbeosbwo1234 6y ago
  Not everyone in Silicon Valley is a rationalist, but pretty much all Rationalists are in Silicon Valley. Some big names in Silicon Valley are central figures in the movement. EDIT: To be clear, I don't know what the geographic distribution of Rationalists is. I also don't care. The fact of the matter is that the movement is irrelevant everywhere except Silicon Valley, and within Silicon Valley it is fairly powerful with several prominent adherents. This is spelled out in the New York Times article and its citations.
  - leesalminen 6y ago
    Citation needed.
    - xirbeosbwo1234 6y ago
      Here ya go: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/13/technology/slate-star-codex-rationalists.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/13/technology/slate-star-cod...
      - leesalminen 6y ago
        Sorry, the NYT is no longer an authoritative source on any topic. Please provide peer-reviewed research, published in at least 2 academic journals, with reproducible results. Thanks.
      - NoOneNew 6y ago
        You dont know the difference between an opinion piece and scientifically gathered data, do you? And I'm stupid white trash by the way. You definitely have a shinier degree than me (you might want a refund by the way). Though I've always been on the NASA, JPL and general engineering side of tech. I like their irrational behavior to the rational Silicon Valley. Let that marinate.
strken 6y ago
This is no fairer than saying any given Catholic must be a paedophile priest, any given Muslim must be a Salafi, or any given hippy must take LSD and sleep with strangers.
- xirbeosbwo1234 6y ago
  What did I write that's untrue?
  - strken 6y ago
    It's possible to be unfair without ever actually lying. "Using the handle xirbeosbwo1234, <your name> posted on Hacker News, a forum where rich San Franciscan tech CEOs and thought leaders could talk about everything from the infamous Damore memo, to Trump advisor Peter Thiel, to race relations and the BLM movement. On an article from Reason magazine, a fiercely libertarian media outlet, he gleefully ventured opinions on monarchy and race realism. For him, the site was a space where the worst consequences he faced were downvotes and the disbelief of his equally pseudonymous peers."
    - xirbeosbwo1234 6y ago
      "And <your name> criticized the Reason article, accused its author of dissembling, and called monarchists and race realists names." The NYT article is perfectly fair. It states that Scott Alexander has sharply criticized neoreactionaries, which is true. It states that he has been a frequent critic of so-called SJWs and has written about possible genetic causes of some of the racial and sexual inequities we see in society, which is also true. Those things are part of the story. You are the one trying to leave them out.
      - strken 6y ago
        No, I'm trying to leave out the part that implies he agrees with Charles Murray's edgy beliefs, on the basis that he doesn't.
  - 6y ago
blueflow 6y ago
Would you considering forming an opinion about the rationalists using more than just NYTimes as a single source? I assumed its established now that they aren't unbiased in this matter...
- xirbeosbwo1234 6y ago
  I am a long-time reader of Slate Star Codex and was a self-described Rationalist in my teenage years. I am still active in effective altruism circles. I consider the article entirely fair. In fact, you will see that pretty much all I am doing in this thread is telling people to read the original article. Its treatment of SSC is evenhanded and, at times, downright glowing. It says everything I want to say more eloquently than I am able. The only problem I have with it is the title.
  - blueflow 6y ago
    > In fact, you will see that pretty much all I am doing in this thread is telling people to read the original article. That is only half the truth - you also called people monarchists and crackpots. You got flagged for doing that, rightly so. You could bring your point across much better if you were to leave out the name-calling and pejorative language. Cade Metz would benefit from this advice as well.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - xirbeosbwo1234 6y ago
      Oh, cut the crap. The whole Reason article is accusing Metz of acting in bad faith, calling his writing a "lazy hit piece that actively misleads readers", etc. I called the Reason article a misrepresentation and I called Eliezer Yudkowsky a crackpot. If you're going to criticize me for saying that, then why are you leaving the Reason article alone? Cade Metz did not engage in name-calling and didn't use any pejorative language, so why are you criticizing him? Am I ineffective for saying that? Maybe. But I'm also right. I don't particularly mind if you dislike my tone. Also, "monarchist" isn't an insult. It's the word we use for people who think we should have a king. People like the neoreactionaries who have a strange tendency to pop up in rationalist circles.
piokoch 6y ago
Could you shed some light on what is wrong with being a monarchist? I mean there are still a lot of countries on the World that are monarchies: Sweden, UK, Norway, the Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium to name a few largest European monarchies. Those countries does not seem to be hostile to their citizens (or anyone else for that matter) and are considered to be quite civilized?
- myWindoonn 6y ago
  And Bhutan and Thailand? Don't cherry-pick monarchs.
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    Ah yes, Bhutan. That hellish nation where they have had one death from covid. Where the government is more concerned with happiness than with sales. Where education is free. The only nation that is carbon-negative. What terrible lives they suffer through. Note to morons: I don't say this because I support monarchy or any authoritarianism. It's just... let's not exemplify the "clueless American" trope.
- ed25519FUUU 6y ago
  Those countries can decide for themselves if a monarchy is worth it. There was a lot of hard work done here to remove the monarch.
- GVIrish 6y ago
  All of those countries only feature monarchies as vestiges of the feudal era. All of them have elections and the elected government is what actually runs those countries. A real monarchy would be something like Saudi Arabia.
  - zepto 6y ago
    Not according to the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/08/queen-power-british-law-queens-consent https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/08/queen-...
scythe 6y ago
>The Rationalist movement is deeply weird. It has curious connections with "race realists" and monarchists. Yes, the rationalist movement is weird, and in some ways, bad. But Scott Alexander didn't start the rationalist movement and doesn't control it. Holding him responsible for what other people post on his website (that he makes no money from), while Twitter, Reddit, Facebook et al continue to enjoy the complicity of the media in the equally awful discourse there, is just a case of stomping on the little guy because you can. Insofar as the NYT declared SSC to be "a window into the Silicon Valley psyche", there's a much more obvious candidate forum for that, and you're posting on it.
- jessaustin 6y ago
  This is why I wonder about the self-described "HN critics". If they really didn't like HN and wanted to harm it, it would be no trouble to hook a producer or editor at some news media firm on some ridiculous misinterpretation of any number of things said on HN on a regular basis. They could simultaneously leak something misleading to AOC and Josh Hawley to get both sides of the aisle in Congress wound up. Would NYT be frightened by actual SV connections?
  - reducesuffering 6y ago
    This is actually a prescient point. We're one node away from the rationalist community (as SSC and this article have had huge threads the past couple weeks). Given NYT's blatant guilty-by-association of the rationalist community, and any competence from them would understand that HN has a far bigger impact on SV than the rationalists, I think we're not too far away from a huge slandering NYT piece like this for HN.

gipp 6y ago

Weird, undoubtedly. Think they are smarter than they are? Mostly, yes. "Aligned with race realists and monarchists (?)" Definitely not.

xirbeosbwo1234 6y ago
>"Aligned with race realists and monarchists (?)" Definitely not. Definitely yes. Ever heard of Moldbug? The dude who claimed the rule of Leopold II (yes, that Leopold II) would be better than our current government? I am not claiming that they are the same movement, but the Dark Enlightenment is closely related to the Rationalist movement. There is a great deal of cross-pollination. The New York Times article is a great jumping-off point to read about this connection! It has several relevant links, including this one that explicitly discusses the monarchists: https://techcrunch.com/2013/11/22/geeks-for-monarchy/ https://techcrunch.com/2013/11/22/geeks-for-monarchy/
- rjsw 6y ago
  Can't see Leopold II being very popular in Silicon Valley, he would certainly reduce the demand for smartwatches.
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    OTOH, he'd get the cobalt mined on schedule...
- Tuna-Fish 6y ago
  Yes, I have heard of Moldbug. In fact, from one of the ginormous blog posts on SSC where Scott tore his beliefs to shreds. You keep claiming that alt-right/monarchist movements have connections to rationalists, without any kind of proof or references to those connections. Which is exactly what the shitty NYT article did. Can you actually show how they are related, instead of just claiming they are?

stupidcar 6y ago

I've read it. Almost the first thing I saw was: "Slate Star Codex was a window into the Silicon Valley psyche." This is just so obviously, insanely wrong that it's impossible to take anything else in the article seriously.

xirbeosbwo1234 6y ago
Not everyone in Silicon Valley is a rationalist, but pretty much all Rationalists are in Silicon Valley. Some big names in Silicon Valley are central figures in the movement. EDIT: To be clear, I don't know what the geographic distribution of Rationalists is. I also don't care. The fact of the matter is that the movement is irrelevant everywhere except Silicon Valley, and within Silicon Valley it is fairly powerful with several prominent adherents. This is spelled out in the New York Times article and its citations.
- leesalminen 6y ago
  Citation needed.
  - xirbeosbwo1234 6y ago
    Here ya go: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/13/technology/slate-star-codex-rationalists.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/13/technology/slate-star-cod...
    - leesalminen 6y ago
      Sorry, the NYT is no longer an authoritative source on any topic. Please provide peer-reviewed research, published in at least 2 academic journals, with reproducible results. Thanks.
    - NoOneNew 6y ago
      You dont know the difference between an opinion piece and scientifically gathered data, do you? And I'm stupid white trash by the way. You definitely have a shinier degree than me (you might want a refund by the way). Though I've always been on the NASA, JPL and general engineering side of tech. I like their irrational behavior to the rational Silicon Valley. Let that marinate.

strken 6y ago

This is no fairer than saying any given Catholic must be a paedophile priest, any given Muslim must be a Salafi, or any given hippy must take LSD and sleep with strangers.

xirbeosbwo1234 6y ago
What did I write that's untrue?
- strken 6y ago
  It's possible to be unfair without ever actually lying. "Using the handle xirbeosbwo1234, <your name> posted on Hacker News, a forum where rich San Franciscan tech CEOs and thought leaders could talk about everything from the infamous Damore memo, to Trump advisor Peter Thiel, to race relations and the BLM movement. On an article from Reason magazine, a fiercely libertarian media outlet, he gleefully ventured opinions on monarchy and race realism. For him, the site was a space where the worst consequences he faced were downvotes and the disbelief of his equally pseudonymous peers."
  - xirbeosbwo1234 6y ago
    "And <your name> criticized the Reason article, accused its author of dissembling, and called monarchists and race realists names." The NYT article is perfectly fair. It states that Scott Alexander has sharply criticized neoreactionaries, which is true. It states that he has been a frequent critic of so-called SJWs and has written about possible genetic causes of some of the racial and sexual inequities we see in society, which is also true. Those things are part of the story. You are the one trying to leave them out.
    - strken 6y ago
      No, I'm trying to leave out the part that implies he agrees with Charles Murray's edgy beliefs, on the basis that he doesn't.
- 6y ago

blueflow 6y ago

Would you considering forming an opinion about the rationalists using more than just NYTimes as a single source? I assumed its established now that they aren't unbiased in this matter...

xirbeosbwo1234 6y ago
I am a long-time reader of Slate Star Codex and was a self-described Rationalist in my teenage years. I am still active in effective altruism circles. I consider the article entirely fair. In fact, you will see that pretty much all I am doing in this thread is telling people to read the original article. Its treatment of SSC is evenhanded and, at times, downright glowing. It says everything I want to say more eloquently than I am able. The only problem I have with it is the title.
- blueflow 6y ago
  > In fact, you will see that pretty much all I am doing in this thread is telling people to read the original article. That is only half the truth - you also called people monarchists and crackpots. You got flagged for doing that, rightly so. You could bring your point across much better if you were to leave out the name-calling and pejorative language. Cade Metz would benefit from this advice as well.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - xirbeosbwo1234 6y ago
    Oh, cut the crap. The whole Reason article is accusing Metz of acting in bad faith, calling his writing a "lazy hit piece that actively misleads readers", etc. I called the Reason article a misrepresentation and I called Eliezer Yudkowsky a crackpot. If you're going to criticize me for saying that, then why are you leaving the Reason article alone? Cade Metz did not engage in name-calling and didn't use any pejorative language, so why are you criticizing him? Am I ineffective for saying that? Maybe. But I'm also right. I don't particularly mind if you dislike my tone. Also, "monarchist" isn't an insult. It's the word we use for people who think we should have a king. People like the neoreactionaries who have a strange tendency to pop up in rationalist circles.

piokoch 6y ago

Could you shed some light on what is wrong with being a monarchist? I mean there are still a lot of countries on the World that are monarchies: Sweden, UK, Norway, the Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium to name a few largest European monarchies. Those countries does not seem to be hostile to their citizens (or anyone else for that matter) and are considered to be quite civilized?

myWindoonn 6y ago
And Bhutan and Thailand? Don't cherry-pick monarchs.
- jessaustin 6y ago
  Ah yes, Bhutan. That hellish nation where they have had one death from covid. Where the government is more concerned with happiness than with sales. Where education is free. The only nation that is carbon-negative. What terrible lives they suffer through. Note to morons: I don't say this because I support monarchy or any authoritarianism. It's just... let's not exemplify the "clueless American" trope.
ed25519FUUU 6y ago
Those countries can decide for themselves if a monarchy is worth it. There was a lot of hard work done here to remove the monarch.
GVIrish 6y ago
All of those countries only feature monarchies as vestiges of the feudal era. All of them have elections and the elected government is what actually runs those countries. A real monarchy would be something like Saudi Arabia.
- zepto 6y ago
  Not according to the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/08/queen-power-british-law-queens-consent https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/08/queen-...

scythe 6y ago

>The Rationalist movement is deeply weird. It has curious connections with "race realists" and monarchists. Yes, the rationalist movement is weird, and in some ways, bad. But Scott Alexander didn't start the rationalist movement and doesn't control it. Holding him responsible for what other people post on his website (that he makes no money from), while Twitter, Reddit, Facebook et al continue to enjoy the complicity of the media in the equally awful discourse there, is just a case of stomping on the little guy because you can. Insofar as the NYT declared SSC to be "a window into the Silicon Valley psyche", there's a much more obvious candidate forum for that, and you're posting on it.

jessaustin 6y ago
This is why I wonder about the self-described "HN critics". If they really didn't like HN and wanted to harm it, it would be no trouble to hook a producer or editor at some news media firm on some ridiculous misinterpretation of any number of things said on HN on a regular basis. They could simultaneously leak something misleading to AOC and Josh Hawley to get both sides of the aisle in Congress wound up. Would NYT be frightened by actual SV connections?
- reducesuffering 6y ago
  This is actually a prescient point. We're one node away from the rationalist community (as SSC and this article have had huge threads the past couple weeks). Given NYT's blatant guilty-by-association of the rationalist community, and any competence from them would understand that HN has a far bigger impact on SV than the rationalists, I think we're not too far away from a huge slandering NYT piece like this for HN.