4 ms·

While I don't agree with all of the framing in the NYT story, it's worth noting that Scott Alexander was much friendlier to Moldbug et. al. than the anti-Metz c

While I don't agree with all of the framing in the NYT story, it's worth noting that Scott Alexander was much friendlier to Moldbug et. al. than the anti-Metz camp argued at the time: https://twitter.com/ArsonAtDennys/status/1362153191102677001 https://twitter.com/ArsonAtDennys/status/1362153191102677001 I think Metz's motivation for that framing was his assumption that if SA was not at least sympathetic to NRx views, he would not allow them to be such a big voice in his comments and in his community. You can argue about the reasonableness of this assumption, but he did turn out to be right.

kragen 3y ago
alexander is the guy who wrote the 30,000 word anti-reactionary faq about why moldbug was wrong, though; those screenshots explain in detail why he was unsympathetic to their neoreactionary views, rather than demonstrating that he was sympathetic to them he does say some things there that are entirely outside the pale and that he should have known better than, but sad to say, those particular beliefs aren't limited to neoreactionaries
- db-interface 3y ago
  I don't mean to say that he was a closet NRx -- and IMO neither did Metz imply that -- just that he agreed with a much larger subset of their controversial views than he or his allies admitted publicly. I would consider that being "sympathetic" to NRx.
  - kragen 3y ago
    i don't think the leaked screenshots support those conclusions; i don't have any idea where you're getting those conclusions from
    - db-interface 3y ago
      In them he says "HBD is probably partially correct" -- do you think that's not a NRx view (I agree others also hold it, but I would argue that it's a core view of NRx -- it doesn't need to be exclusive to them, e.g. Islam considers Jesus a prophet too), or that he publicly held that position previously?
      - kragen 3y ago
        i'm not familiar with the varieties of neoreaction that consider it a core view, though apparently to my surprise they do exist i think the vast majority of racists aren't neoreactionaries, though. like literally more than 99.9%
        db-interface 3y ago
        I spent a lot of time on SSC from 2013 to 2017, and my recollection is that the Venn diagram of commenters promoting HBD and those promoting RDx was nearly a circle. And similarly for related sites like LW. So in that context I would say the two are closely related. I find it hard to believe you've been exposed to much NRx content if you don't think they consider HBD true and very important. Although don't take that as a criticism -- I would not recommend wading through their beliefs and look back on it as a waste of my time.
        kragen 3y ago
        i read through most of moldbug's blog, and also knew his name and rhetorical style from crooked timber comments. possibly he was less racist than his followers? or just more circumspect about it. in any case, he attempted to justify his anti-liberal philosophy, at quite extreme length, but never on the basis of racism; so if racism was a core belief of his neoreactionary thought, it was apparently at a subconscious level i remained unpersuaded in any case, steadfastly liberal also, much to my surprise, he and i were both members of the first coworking space at spiral muse house in san francisco in 02006. but i didn't go very often, so i don't know if i ever met him; in any case that was before he revealed his identity
        db-interface 3y ago
        I guess I am much less familiar with Moldbug's stated views than you, so I'm happy to concede that point. Anyway, I think the HBD/NRx relationship is peripheral to the discussion of the Metz article -- I just framed it that way because that's the context of Scott's emails (certainly he think's they're at least associated!). The discourse around the Metz article was that it framed Scott as holding racist views, not specifically NRx views. If I had mentioned Steve Sailer instead of NRx, would you agree that Scott was more sympathetic to those views than he publicly let on?
    - sudosysgen 3y ago
      If you believe that differences in behaviours between groups of humans are significantly explained by genetic variation (which is supported by the evidence to some degree), and that those genetic variations align along racial lines (which really isn't), what do you think that entails on social outcomes between racial groups?
Manuel_D 3y ago
This is straightforward guilt-by-association: because of the mere fact that Scott interacted with people espousing neo reactionary views, he must also be sympathetic to those views. Of course, this is completed wrong and easily known by reading Scotts writings on the topic: https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/10/20/the-anti-reactionary-faq/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/10/20/the-anti-reactionary-f... There is zero way to say in good faith the Scott espouses or even agrees with neo reactionism.
- db-interface 3y ago
  I said he was "sympathetic to NRx views" and linked emails from him stating certain views widely held by Moldbug et. al. that he is sympathetic to. Do you disagree that "HBD" is an NRx view, or that the leaked emails express sympathy for it?
  - reducesuffering 3y ago
    NRx views SSC as a useful blog to read in 2013-2017. Oh looks like you did too. Can't believe you're "sympathetic to NRx views."
    - db-interface 3y ago
      This is obtuse. I didn't make any argument about SA reading the same stuff NRx read, or even reading NRx stuff. I linked SA's own writing that "Many of their insights seem important" and that their views have "nuggets of absolute gold".
      - Manuel_D 3y ago
        "nuggets of gold" implies that the bulk of it is not gold. If reference someone, saying even a broken clock is right twice a day is that really an endorsement?
        kragen 3y ago
        it would be really surprising if a writer as prolific and literate as moldbug didn't occasionally produce nuggets of gold

kragen 3y ago

alexander is the guy who wrote the 30,000 word anti-reactionary faq about why moldbug was wrong, though; those screenshots explain in detail why he was unsympathetic to their neoreactionary views, rather than demonstrating that he was sympathetic to them he does say some things there that are entirely outside the pale and that he should have known better than, but sad to say, those particular beliefs aren't limited to neoreactionaries

db-interface 3y ago
I don't mean to say that he was a closet NRx -- and IMO neither did Metz imply that -- just that he agreed with a much larger subset of their controversial views than he or his allies admitted publicly. I would consider that being "sympathetic" to NRx.
- kragen 3y ago
  i don't think the leaked screenshots support those conclusions; i don't have any idea where you're getting those conclusions from
  - db-interface 3y ago
    In them he says "HBD is probably partially correct" -- do you think that's not a NRx view (I agree others also hold it, but I would argue that it's a core view of NRx -- it doesn't need to be exclusive to them, e.g. Islam considers Jesus a prophet too), or that he publicly held that position previously?
    - kragen 3y ago
      i'm not familiar with the varieties of neoreaction that consider it a core view, though apparently to my surprise they do exist i think the vast majority of racists aren't neoreactionaries, though. like literally more than 99.9%
      - db-interface 3y ago
        I spent a lot of time on SSC from 2013 to 2017, and my recollection is that the Venn diagram of commenters promoting HBD and those promoting RDx was nearly a circle. And similarly for related sites like LW. So in that context I would say the two are closely related. I find it hard to believe you've been exposed to much NRx content if you don't think they consider HBD true and very important. Although don't take that as a criticism -- I would not recommend wading through their beliefs and look back on it as a waste of my time.
        kragen 3y ago
        i read through most of moldbug's blog, and also knew his name and rhetorical style from crooked timber comments. possibly he was less racist than his followers? or just more circumspect about it. in any case, he attempted to justify his anti-liberal philosophy, at quite extreme length, but never on the basis of racism; so if racism was a core belief of his neoreactionary thought, it was apparently at a subconscious level i remained unpersuaded in any case, steadfastly liberal also, much to my surprise, he and i were both members of the first coworking space at spiral muse house in san francisco in 02006. but i didn't go very often, so i don't know if i ever met him; in any case that was before he revealed his identity
        db-interface 3y ago
        I guess I am much less familiar with Moldbug's stated views than you, so I'm happy to concede that point. Anyway, I think the HBD/NRx relationship is peripheral to the discussion of the Metz article -- I just framed it that way because that's the context of Scott's emails (certainly he think's they're at least associated!). The discourse around the Metz article was that it framed Scott as holding racist views, not specifically NRx views. If I had mentioned Steve Sailer instead of NRx, would you agree that Scott was more sympathetic to those views than he publicly let on?
  - sudosysgen 3y ago
    If you believe that differences in behaviours between groups of humans are significantly explained by genetic variation (which is supported by the evidence to some degree), and that those genetic variations align along racial lines (which really isn't), what do you think that entails on social outcomes between racial groups?

Manuel_D 3y ago

This is straightforward guilt-by-association: because of the mere fact that Scott interacted with people espousing neo reactionary views, he must also be sympathetic to those views. Of course, this is completed wrong and easily known by reading Scotts writings on the topic: https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/10/20/the-anti-reactionary-faq/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/10/20/the-anti-reactionary-f... There is zero way to say in good faith the Scott espouses or even agrees with neo reactionism.

db-interface 3y ago
I said he was "sympathetic to NRx views" and linked emails from him stating certain views widely held by Moldbug et. al. that he is sympathetic to. Do you disagree that "HBD" is an NRx view, or that the leaked emails express sympathy for it?
- reducesuffering 3y ago
  NRx views SSC as a useful blog to read in 2013-2017. Oh looks like you did too. Can't believe you're "sympathetic to NRx views."
  - db-interface 3y ago
    This is obtuse. I didn't make any argument about SA reading the same stuff NRx read, or even reading NRx stuff. I linked SA's own writing that "Many of their insights seem important" and that their views have "nuggets of absolute gold".
    - Manuel_D 3y ago
      "nuggets of gold" implies that the bulk of it is not gold. If reference someone, saying even a broken clock is right twice a day is that really an endorsement?
      - kragen 3y ago
        it would be really surprising if a writer as prolific and literate as moldbug didn't occasionally produce nuggets of gold