3 ms·

https://miniver.blogspot.com/2024/01/scott-alexander-siskind-slate-star-codex.html?m=1 https://miniver.blogspot.com/2024/01/scott-alexander-siskind...

dogleash 1y ago
That person is way too far down the rabbit hole themselves to give a decent criticism of Alexander. When someone's #1, heavy-hitting, come-out-swinging criticism amounts to "his group is not as smart as they think they are" then they're already done. They've cooked themselves. I read that paragraph and heard it in the mean girl voice they thought they were hiding. #2 is that his wrong ideas are immoral. #3 is that #2 draws the wrong crowd. It's not like I don't get the point. It's just written for an audience that already deep in that corner of the blogosphere. I'm sure they pump their fists at such a clean summing-up of why they hate him. But my eyes are glazing over.
ralfd 1y ago
This seems to boil down to that Elizabeth Sandifer, a self described "middle-aged trans anarchist", believes https://www.astralcodexten.com https://www.astralcodexten.com is "fertile grounds for white nationalist recruitment". This is just wrong and anyone can visit the blog to see for themselves.
- TimorousBestie 1y ago
  Yes, read the comments on ACX where Steve Sailer of VDARE dog-whistles as loudly as he can. Read Scott’s glowing review of _Albion’s Seed_.
rendang 1y ago
This is just a preaching-to-the-choir description of the fact that Siskind does not hold 100% to egalitarian leftism. Unless you're already a doctrinaire egalitarian leftist, I don't see why reading this would change your opinion of him by a millimeter
- timmytokyo 1y ago
  Yeah, I guess it's true that people who (1) like eugenics and "human biodiversity" (i.e., race science), and (2) think neoreactionism is "edgy and cool" are not egalitarian or leftist.
  - rendang 1y ago
    Not necessarily, egalitarian cultures like N Europe practice eugenics through selective abortion of the disabled.
- jrflowers 1y ago
  > Unless you're already a doctrinaire egalitarian leftist, I don't see why reading this would change your opinion of him by a millimeter It seems possible that if someone wasn’t familiar with Scott’s position on race science, they could read about his position on race science and then have that influence their opinion of him. Out of curiosity, are you lumping everybody into two groups? The way your sentence was worded it sounds like there are on one hand people that believe in race science, and on the other hand “doctrinaire egalitarian leftists”. If the only qualification required to be a “doctrinaire egalitarian leftist” is “not believing in race science”, then you’ve kind of just said “Unless [you don’t believe in race science], I don’t see why reading this would change your opinion of him by a millimeter”, which might actually kind of underscore some people’s issue with him.
  - rendang 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - jrflowers 1y ago
      Thank you for clarifying that you are using the term “doctrinaire egalitarian leftist” to refer to any individual that does not believe in race science, or more specifically any individual that doesn’t agree with Scott Siskind’s position on race science. I’m personally not super familiar with that label and assumed because of the definitions of those words that it would have some sort of philosophical or ideological connotation — but since a person needn’t be doctrinaire, a philosophical egalitarian, or a leftist to not be a fan of Scott’s blog, when you say “doctrinaire egalitarian leftist” here you mean it like when a Juggalo says somebody isn’t “down with the clowns” I’d pick another word for non-Codexers or Scott Thots (I’m guessing, I don’t know what label your fandom self-applies here), as someone could mistakenly think that you are trying to make some sort of point. (Which we know that you are not, since your original post was essentially just “Bringing up Scott’s positions on race science won’t change the opinions of the fans of Scott’s positions on race science” just phrased in a maximally-confusing and belabored way)

dogleash 1y ago

That person is way too far down the rabbit hole themselves to give a decent criticism of Alexander. When someone's #1, heavy-hitting, come-out-swinging criticism amounts to "his group is not as smart as they think they are" then they're already done. They've cooked themselves. I read that paragraph and heard it in the mean girl voice they thought they were hiding. #2 is that his wrong ideas are immoral. #3 is that #2 draws the wrong crowd. It's not like I don't get the point. It's just written for an audience that already deep in that corner of the blogosphere. I'm sure they pump their fists at such a clean summing-up of why they hate him. But my eyes are glazing over.

ralfd 1y ago

This seems to boil down to that Elizabeth Sandifer, a self described "middle-aged trans anarchist", believes https://www.astralcodexten.com https://www.astralcodexten.com is "fertile grounds for white nationalist recruitment". This is just wrong and anyone can visit the blog to see for themselves.

TimorousBestie 1y ago
Yes, read the comments on ACX where Steve Sailer of VDARE dog-whistles as loudly as he can. Read Scott’s glowing review of _Albion’s Seed_.

rendang 1y ago

This is just a preaching-to-the-choir description of the fact that Siskind does not hold 100% to egalitarian leftism. Unless you're already a doctrinaire egalitarian leftist, I don't see why reading this would change your opinion of him by a millimeter

timmytokyo 1y ago
Yeah, I guess it's true that people who (1) like eugenics and "human biodiversity" (i.e., race science), and (2) think neoreactionism is "edgy and cool" are not egalitarian or leftist.
- rendang 1y ago
  Not necessarily, egalitarian cultures like N Europe practice eugenics through selective abortion of the disabled.
jrflowers 1y ago
> Unless you're already a doctrinaire egalitarian leftist, I don't see why reading this would change your opinion of him by a millimeter It seems possible that if someone wasn’t familiar with Scott’s position on race science, they could read about his position on race science and then have that influence their opinion of him. Out of curiosity, are you lumping everybody into two groups? The way your sentence was worded it sounds like there are on one hand people that believe in race science, and on the other hand “doctrinaire egalitarian leftists”. If the only qualification required to be a “doctrinaire egalitarian leftist” is “not believing in race science”, then you’ve kind of just said “Unless [you don’t believe in race science], I don’t see why reading this would change your opinion of him by a millimeter”, which might actually kind of underscore some people’s issue with him.
- rendang 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - jrflowers 1y ago
    Thank you for clarifying that you are using the term “doctrinaire egalitarian leftist” to refer to any individual that does not believe in race science, or more specifically any individual that doesn’t agree with Scott Siskind’s position on race science. I’m personally not super familiar with that label and assumed because of the definitions of those words that it would have some sort of philosophical or ideological connotation — but since a person needn’t be doctrinaire, a philosophical egalitarian, or a leftist to not be a fan of Scott’s blog, when you say “doctrinaire egalitarian leftist” here you mean it like when a Juggalo says somebody isn’t “down with the clowns” I’d pick another word for non-Codexers or Scott Thots (I’m guessing, I don’t know what label your fandom self-applies here), as someone could mistakenly think that you are trying to make some sort of point. (Which we know that you are not, since your original post was essentially just “Bringing up Scott’s positions on race science won’t change the opinions of the fans of Scott’s positions on race science” just phrased in a maximally-confusing and belabored way)