6 ms·

I have read it. I don't find "But Not NOT One, Either" to be an accurate characterization. Basically, Moldbug's position is that white nationalists include lots

I have read it. I don't find "But Not NOT One, Either" to be an accurate characterization. Basically, Moldbug's position is that white nationalists include lots of vile racists, but that by itself doesn't mean they're wrong about everything, and we should evaluate such ideas critically if we want to actually solve the problems they identify (which in fact many progressives would identify as well, though the phrasing and emphasis usually differ substantially). Some quotes: Of course, I am not a white nationalist. I am not arguing that you should be a white nationalist. I am just suggesting that there are many bad reasons not to be a white nationalist. […] So why am I not a white nationalist? I am not a white nationalist because I don't find white nationalism useful or effective. I don't feel it helps me accurately perceive reality. In fact, I think it distorts reality. And I believe white nationalism is a very ineffective political device for solving the very real problems about which it complains.

tptacek 11y ago
Your choices of what to quote are telling. For instance, one of those quotes is preceded by a lengthy (and thinly veiled) Derbyshire-esque description of black people as social ill. Shortly after it, we have these cheerful grafs: This is the trouble with white nationalism. It is strategically barren. It offers no effective political program. You can be as smart as you want and think about white nationalism forever, and you will not come up with any productive strategy for collective action, white or otherwise. At its best, white nationalism offers a sensible description of a general problem. [em mine] This problem certainly exists, and it falls under the larger category of bad government. (If allowing the old cities of North America to be overrun and rendered largely uninhabitable by murderous racist gangs isn't bad government, really, I'm not sure what is.) He's not a white nationalist. He's something else. There's also the historical context of this post, which is William Saletan's idiotic Slate posts about rational IQ variation. I think a reader of this thread can understand why I'd say that it's you who were being misleading. I feel like that was probably unintentional on your part, because if you were trying to mount a careful bad-faith defense of Yarvin's writing, you probably wouldn't write things that would beg people to further quote it.
- yebyen 11y ago
  It's important to consider the audience of this blog post. Many of the readers may in fact be white nationalists looking to Moldbug for justification for their ideals, and I'd speculate the post is written how it is because it's just not helpful to tell them their concerns are flat-out invalid. I am not here to defend this position, I am simply here to say I find it to be something other than indefensible.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    If you read more broadly about "neo-reactionism", it's not hard to reach the conclusion that white supremacy --- or some intellectual abstraction isomorphic to it --- is one of its defining features. They're like the Non-Threatening Boys Magazine version of white power.
    - lexcorvus 11y ago
      it's not hard to reach the conclusion that white supremacy --- or some intellectual abstraction isomorphic to it --- is one of its defining features On the contrary, it's impossible to reach that conclusion if you read even cursorily. For example, neoreactionaries generally accept the results of mainstream academic studies concluding that Chinese are on average more intelligent than Europeans, and that European Jews are on average more intelligent than European Gentiles. These are not views traditionally associated with "white supremacy," to say the least. P.S. +1 for the reference to one of my favorite sly Simpson's jokes.
      - tptacek 11y ago
        +1 for retention of humor in a pretty dreary discussion.
- devalier 11y ago
  "There's also the historical context of this post, which is William Saletan's idiotic Slate posts about rational IQ variation." When I first read that Saletan post I found it pretty convincing. And when I did much more follow-up reading, reading lots of books and journal articles from all sides, it seemed like the preponderance of the evidence is on the side of there being significant ethnic based variation. For example - https://liberalbiorealism.wordpress.com/2009/10/07/the-likelihood-of-genetic-group-differences-in-iq-the-black-white-gap-in-iq/ https://liberalbiorealism.wordpress.com/2009/10/07/the-likel... and his other posts, or https://jaymans.wordpress.com/jaymans-race-inheritance-and-iq-f-a-q-f-r-b/ https://jaymans.wordpress.com/jaymans-race-inheritance-and-i... You seem like a smart and open minded person. Why did you find Saletan's posts idiotic? I'm genuinely interested in your opinion. Don't answer in this thread though, email me at the address in my profile. You're writing under your real name, and in the possibility that I convince you, I don't want you to get purged.

tptacek 11y ago

Your choices of what to quote are telling. For instance, one of those quotes is preceded by a lengthy (and thinly veiled) Derbyshire-esque description of black people as social ill. Shortly after it, we have these cheerful grafs: This is the trouble with white nationalism. It is strategically barren. It offers no effective political program. You can be as smart as you want and think about white nationalism forever, and you will not come up with any productive strategy for collective action, white or otherwise. At its best, white nationalism offers a sensible description of a general problem. [em mine] This problem certainly exists, and it falls under the larger category of bad government. (If allowing the old cities of North America to be overrun and rendered largely uninhabitable by murderous racist gangs isn't bad government, really, I'm not sure what is.) He's not a white nationalist. He's something else. There's also the historical context of this post, which is William Saletan's idiotic Slate posts about rational IQ variation. I think a reader of this thread can understand why I'd say that it's you who were being misleading. I feel like that was probably unintentional on your part, because if you were trying to mount a careful bad-faith defense of Yarvin's writing, you probably wouldn't write things that would beg people to further quote it.

yebyen 11y ago
It's important to consider the audience of this blog post. Many of the readers may in fact be white nationalists looking to Moldbug for justification for their ideals, and I'd speculate the post is written how it is because it's just not helpful to tell them their concerns are flat-out invalid. I am not here to defend this position, I am simply here to say I find it to be something other than indefensible.
- tptacek 11y ago
  If you read more broadly about "neo-reactionism", it's not hard to reach the conclusion that white supremacy --- or some intellectual abstraction isomorphic to it --- is one of its defining features. They're like the Non-Threatening Boys Magazine version of white power.
  - lexcorvus 11y ago
    it's not hard to reach the conclusion that white supremacy --- or some intellectual abstraction isomorphic to it --- is one of its defining features On the contrary, it's impossible to reach that conclusion if you read even cursorily. For example, neoreactionaries generally accept the results of mainstream academic studies concluding that Chinese are on average more intelligent than Europeans, and that European Jews are on average more intelligent than European Gentiles. These are not views traditionally associated with "white supremacy," to say the least. P.S. +1 for the reference to one of my favorite sly Simpson's jokes.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      +1 for retention of humor in a pretty dreary discussion.
devalier 11y ago
"There's also the historical context of this post, which is William Saletan's idiotic Slate posts about rational IQ variation." When I first read that Saletan post I found it pretty convincing. And when I did much more follow-up reading, reading lots of books and journal articles from all sides, it seemed like the preponderance of the evidence is on the side of there being significant ethnic based variation. For example - https://liberalbiorealism.wordpress.com/2009/10/07/the-likelihood-of-genetic-group-differences-in-iq-the-black-white-gap-in-iq/ https://liberalbiorealism.wordpress.com/2009/10/07/the-likel... and his other posts, or https://jaymans.wordpress.com/jaymans-race-inheritance-and-iq-f-a-q-f-r-b/ https://jaymans.wordpress.com/jaymans-race-inheritance-and-i... You seem like a smart and open minded person. Why did you find Saletan's posts idiotic? I'm genuinely interested in your opinion. Don't answer in this thread though, email me at the address in my profile. You're writing under your real name, and in the possibility that I convince you, I don't want you to get purged.