3 ms·

There are a lot of examples in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46889008 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46889008 eg: https://news.ycom

There are a lot of examples in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46889008 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46889008 eg: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46890435 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46890435 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46892447 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46892447 Yarvin believes in a world where the upper class (monarchy) runs everything. It's a pretty controversial take to support them from somebody who themselves has faced discrimination. I think Justine might be out of touch with people who aren't well off. She seems to do some trolling (but it isn't obvious because she won't address) it where she even made statements which seemed like they were in support of slavery back in 2012. She's brilliant but controversial and I'm sure being trans doesn't help with people rejecting her for no reason either.

stratos123 4mo ago
Some of the reactions to this are slightly unfair because it looks like Justine (who I'm not familiar with) supported Moldbug in 2014. It was only in around 2020 when Yarvin sold out, did a 180 in his views, and became a Trumpist; in the early 2010s, he would write long posts about how populism inevitably leads to fascism, any entity who wants power cannot ever be trusted with it, etc. His political views back then were far weirder than what people probably think - e.g. he thought a dictator needs to be simultaneously secure and yet overseen by a board of directors with power to replace the dictator, using some galaxy-brained setup I don't really understand. Hence, recommending Curtis Yarvin in 2014 is rather eyebrow-raising but a very different thing from recommending him now.
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
- adampunk 4mo ago
  It’s hardly a 180 to go from supporting a dictator in general to picking one in particular. Yarvin is the kind of reactionary who appealed to to the kind of person who intellectualized themselves out of understanding what reactionary politics leads to. When it led to that it was easier to say that Yarvin sold out and changed rather than reckon with the fact that no course change happened.
- BugsJustFindMe 4mo ago
  > Some of the reactions to this are slightly unfair because ... in 2014. It was only in around 2020... I think you're wrong about Yarvin changing, but let's say you're right for a moment. Do you know what's easy to do between then and now? Say, "That was an error. I regret it." Do you know what hasn't been done between then and now? Yeah.
  - gordian-mind 4mo ago
    Did you make a compilation of everything they publicly said for ten years, in order to check whether your statement is correct?
    - BugsJustFindMe 4mo ago
      That is a deeply unserious question. I have a hard time believing you've asked it in good faith.
      - gordian-mind 4mo ago
        So, you didn't? Instead of a compilation, did you do a quick check?
- Xmd5a 4mo ago
  > Justine Tunney (Founder of OccupyWallSt.org)
manytimesaway 4mo ago
This person has a massive ego, too. Starting by putting her name everywhere...
zozbot234 4mo ago
> Yarvin believes in a world where the upper class ... runs everything. Plenty of people believe that, if perhaps only in a descriptive sense. Given the constraints of human social organization, it's just very difficult to not have a world where some kind of restricted social elite (that people may of course rotate in and out of, allowing for some kind of social mobility) is running things. Especially if we're even less comfortable with the main realistic alternative to social hierarchy, namely open markets. Even self-proclaimed anarchists have long acknowledged that 'the tyranny of structurelessness' is a thing: trying to remove structure just makes it less readable and overt; it doesn't make it go away.
- defrost 4mo ago
  Upper class carries a heavy implication of nepotism with minimal social class mobility. This is quite distinct from, say, a government of elected policy debaters submitting bills to a body of elected law passers that are part of a silo separate from the the silo's of military, civil enforcement, policy enactment (merit based civil service), etc. The later is a hierarchy but not a class based one (assuming sufficient widespread education and social support).
  - zozbot234 4mo ago
    Thing is, our existing governments also carry a heavy implication of nepotism with minimal social class mobility.
    - defrost 4mo ago
      Our? Oh, your ? Our Government has a PM raised in a public housing estate# and we've mostly avoided political dynasties .. (few want to get caught again* ... ) # https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Albanese#Early_life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Albanese#Early_life * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Court
- tancop 4mo ago

stratos123 4mo ago

Some of the reactions to this are slightly unfair because it looks like Justine (who I'm not familiar with) supported Moldbug in 2014. It was only in around 2020 when Yarvin sold out, did a 180 in his views, and became a Trumpist; in the early 2010s, he would write long posts about how populism inevitably leads to fascism, any entity who wants power cannot ever be trusted with it, etc. His political views back then were far weirder than what people probably think - e.g. he thought a dictator needs to be simultaneously secure and yet overseen by a board of directors with power to replace the dictator, using some galaxy-brained setup I don't really understand. Hence, recommending Curtis Yarvin in 2014 is rather eyebrow-raising but a very different thing from recommending him now.

deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
adampunk 4mo ago
It’s hardly a 180 to go from supporting a dictator in general to picking one in particular. Yarvin is the kind of reactionary who appealed to to the kind of person who intellectualized themselves out of understanding what reactionary politics leads to. When it led to that it was easier to say that Yarvin sold out and changed rather than reckon with the fact that no course change happened.
BugsJustFindMe 4mo ago
> Some of the reactions to this are slightly unfair because ... in 2014. It was only in around 2020... I think you're wrong about Yarvin changing, but let's say you're right for a moment. Do you know what's easy to do between then and now? Say, "That was an error. I regret it." Do you know what hasn't been done between then and now? Yeah.
- gordian-mind 4mo ago
  Did you make a compilation of everything they publicly said for ten years, in order to check whether your statement is correct?
  - BugsJustFindMe 4mo ago
    That is a deeply unserious question. I have a hard time believing you've asked it in good faith.
    - gordian-mind 4mo ago
      So, you didn't? Instead of a compilation, did you do a quick check?
Xmd5a 4mo ago
> Justine Tunney (Founder of OccupyWallSt.org)

manytimesaway 4mo ago

This person has a massive ego, too. Starting by putting her name everywhere...

zozbot234 4mo ago

> Yarvin believes in a world where the upper class ... runs everything. Plenty of people believe that, if perhaps only in a descriptive sense. Given the constraints of human social organization, it's just very difficult to not have a world where some kind of restricted social elite (that people may of course rotate in and out of, allowing for some kind of social mobility) is running things. Especially if we're even less comfortable with the main realistic alternative to social hierarchy, namely open markets. Even self-proclaimed anarchists have long acknowledged that 'the tyranny of structurelessness' is a thing: trying to remove structure just makes it less readable and overt; it doesn't make it go away.

defrost 4mo ago
Upper class carries a heavy implication of nepotism with minimal social class mobility. This is quite distinct from, say, a government of elected policy debaters submitting bills to a body of elected law passers that are part of a silo separate from the the silo's of military, civil enforcement, policy enactment (merit based civil service), etc. The later is a hierarchy but not a class based one (assuming sufficient widespread education and social support).
- zozbot234 4mo ago
  Thing is, our existing governments also carry a heavy implication of nepotism with minimal social class mobility.
  - defrost 4mo ago
    Our? Oh, your ? Our Government has a PM raised in a public housing estate# and we've mostly avoided political dynasties .. (few want to get caught again* ... ) # https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Albanese#Early_life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Albanese#Early_life * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Court
tancop 4mo ago