5 ms·

This is egregiously false. The author wrote a lengthy rebuttal of neoreaction[0]. The only sense in which he is sympathetic to Yarvin is that he reads his ess

This is egregiously false. The author wrote a lengthy rebuttal of neoreaction[0]. The only sense in which he is sympathetic to Yarvin is that he reads his essays and argues against the ideas in them, as opposed to quoting the two worst sentences and calling him racist. 0: https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/10/20/the-anti-reactionary-faq/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/10/20/the-anti-reactionary-f...

jasonhansel 4y ago
I'd said only that he expressed sympathy for neoreactionaries, and the above Twitter thread proves my point.
- tptacek 4y ago
  You probably shouldn't have said that. The case for his support for HBD-flavored racial supremacy is somewhat strong, and the case for his support for a new monarchy is not.
  - zozbot234 4y ago
    The case is not "strong" at all. He doesn't even state he supports HBD, only that he thinks some claims made by its proponents are likely enough to be correct or at least hard to prove not-correct. It's a rather uninteresting observation (everyone knows about some of these issues, they just disagree about the HBDers' causal analysis!) that only gets the attention it does because of how understandably contentious HBD is as a whole. The author does realize this of course, that's why he asks that the exchange not be publicized.
    - tptacek 4y ago
      The email is right there for all of us to read.
      - scarmig 4y ago
        Just because the primary source is both readily available but presented as images on Twitter (apologies for the hosting domain, skip down to "Scott Siskind Thu, Feb 20, 2014, 6:12 PM"), the text: https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2021/02/backstabber-brennan-knifes-scott-alexander-with-2014-email/ https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2021/02/backstabber-brennan-kni... Also includes his links.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - CWuestefeld 4y ago
    The case for his support for HBD-flavored racial supremacy is somewhat strong I don't think this is accurate at all. The case for his belief in HBD differences is strong. But I don't think you'll find evidence of him translating that to supremacy or any kind of racial ranking, especially across all dimensions. In fact, I think you'll find that he disavows any such conclusions.
    - tptacek 4y ago
      He links approvingly to articles that appear to do exactly that, all the while saying that his public statements don't match his private feelings. Respectfully, I believe my own lying eyes.
      - zozbot234 4y ago
        > ... all the while saying that his public statements don't match his private feelings Except that's not what he's doing, at all. There's no evidence that his links are intended to show approval either. A straightforward reading of what we've got is that he's probably been asked to discuss HBD in the previous (unseen by us) exchange and that's what he's doing, citing sources of HBDers' views.
        tptacek 4y ago
        That beggars belief. Not only does he cite them approvingly, but he takes the time to distinguish between which ones he finds particularly well-founded, and uses them as the summation for his first and primary argument, followed by "NEVER TELL ANYONE I SAID THIS, not even in confidence". Again: the mail is right there for everybody to read.
        zozbot234 4y ago
        We don't need to guess what the author's thinking. we know what his first and primary argument is since he tells us directly: he thinks HBD is worth discussing because a few of its claims are either likely to be true or hard to prove as not-true. (And his cautious framing of even this limited issue is revealing enough. One idea he's very clearly not entertaining, not even in private is "HBDers are 100% right about everything!") I'm not sure what's your evidence for rephrasing "well-founded" as an expression of approval, given this previous context. The easiest way by far of reading that exchange is that the author is simply pointing to sources, not approving of them.

jasonhansel 4y ago

I'd said only that he expressed sympathy for neoreactionaries, and the above Twitter thread proves my point.

tptacek 4y ago
You probably shouldn't have said that. The case for his support for HBD-flavored racial supremacy is somewhat strong, and the case for his support for a new monarchy is not.
- zozbot234 4y ago
  The case is not "strong" at all. He doesn't even state he supports HBD, only that he thinks some claims made by its proponents are likely enough to be correct or at least hard to prove not-correct. It's a rather uninteresting observation (everyone knows about some of these issues, they just disagree about the HBDers' causal analysis!) that only gets the attention it does because of how understandably contentious HBD is as a whole. The author does realize this of course, that's why he asks that the exchange not be publicized.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    The email is right there for all of us to read.
    - scarmig 4y ago
      Just because the primary source is both readily available but presented as images on Twitter (apologies for the hosting domain, skip down to "Scott Siskind Thu, Feb 20, 2014, 6:12 PM"), the text: https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2021/02/backstabber-brennan-knifes-scott-alexander-with-2014-email/ https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2021/02/backstabber-brennan-kni... Also includes his links.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
- CWuestefeld 4y ago
  The case for his support for HBD-flavored racial supremacy is somewhat strong I don't think this is accurate at all. The case for his belief in HBD differences is strong. But I don't think you'll find evidence of him translating that to supremacy or any kind of racial ranking, especially across all dimensions. In fact, I think you'll find that he disavows any such conclusions.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    He links approvingly to articles that appear to do exactly that, all the while saying that his public statements don't match his private feelings. Respectfully, I believe my own lying eyes.
    - zozbot234 4y ago
      > ... all the while saying that his public statements don't match his private feelings Except that's not what he's doing, at all. There's no evidence that his links are intended to show approval either. A straightforward reading of what we've got is that he's probably been asked to discuss HBD in the previous (unseen by us) exchange and that's what he's doing, citing sources of HBDers' views.
      - tptacek 4y ago
        That beggars belief. Not only does he cite them approvingly, but he takes the time to distinguish between which ones he finds particularly well-founded, and uses them as the summation for his first and primary argument, followed by "NEVER TELL ANYONE I SAID THIS, not even in confidence". Again: the mail is right there for everybody to read.
        zozbot234 4y ago
        We don't need to guess what the author's thinking. we know what his first and primary argument is since he tells us directly: he thinks HBD is worth discussing because a few of its claims are either likely to be true or hard to prove as not-true. (And his cautious framing of even this limited issue is revealing enough. One idea he's very clearly not entertaining, not even in private is "HBDers are 100% right about everything!") I'm not sure what's your evidence for rephrasing "well-founded" as an expression of approval, given this previous context. The easiest way by far of reading that exchange is that the author is simply pointing to sources, not approving of them.