so we now have an invitation to do an episode of posting through it, which is a (really really good) podcast on the far right. we pick a topic, no other specifics. i am thinking this can be something to do with rationalists and the far right, probably something race sciencey.
SSC leaps to mind but im not sure that’s where ill want to start for an audience that doesn’t necessarily know anything about rats. any thoughts?
it’s a golden… bowler hat?
i feel like people in real life would be far less likely to press the red button, because twitter is almost wall to wall nazis and real life is not
When I was about 12, I got into a discussion about the environment with another kid at school. She told me that it didn’t matter if we ruined the environment of the countries we all live in now, because we could all just move to the Arctic or Antarctica.
this is the level the median hackernews poster thinks on
anthropic is the most moral ai company in the universe
People generally do not like being killed.
source?
i’m in the middle of freefalling down a research rabbit hole and ran across this person decrying curtis yarvin as a fake monarchist who doesn’t understand what makes REAL monarchism good:
someone in the replies asks the obvious question
Ok but what stops the monarch from being a tyrant
and their answer is that you can just kill the monarch
It’s still One Person. A mortal, fleshy person. Their defence is that they’re inoffensive, things are stable, nothing is directly their fault and people are bound by law and oath. But if they screw up badly enough that the things they’re supposed to do don’t happen? There’s more of everyone else than One Person.
new odium symposium episode is now available on all platforms. we look Avgi Saketopoulou and Ann Pellegrini’s Gender Without Identity, a contemporary work of queer psychoanalytic theory. then we look at a case study in which it all goes wrong.
https://www.patreon.com/posts/14-just-call-me-155052365
also we’re starting a discord for the podcast https://discord.gg/7tEEE39Fx
also also we’re going to release our first subscriber episode next week, where we look at the pseudoscientists of paper repository viXra
i love seeing tracing pop up! a true heel to toe bootlicker incapable of seeing himself as anything but the MOST independent thinker
new odium symposium episode: https://www.patreon.com/posts/13-joker-is-both-154123315. links to various platforms at www.odiumsymposium.com
we read umberto eco’s essay ur-fascism (we have mixed feelings about it) and then apply it to frank miller’s 1986 batman comic the dark knight returns
there’s a lot i want to pull out from this comment by ngo
first, shorn of context, i don’t know that this sort of power fantasy reflects so poorly on the rationalists. or perhaps it does, and in that case also reflects poorly on me, since it’s my preferred power fantasy. the world sucks and it would be nice to magically make it better. EDIT: ok im noticing that the naruto fanfiction excerpt is just straightforwardly jerking off about doing a fascist coup
second, we must remember that rat stories are implicitly either recipes for social change or warnings that society ought to stay away from particular demons. rationalism is in large part a political movement with what they believe to be practical aims
third, if ngo’s marxist fiction from the 1800s all ended with communist revolutions, the worrying thing for a member of the movement would not be a fantasy of triumph or a sense of certainty of triumph, but rather an inability to connect triumphant outcomes to action under the present conditions. as you highlighted, the fantastical element of these stories is in conflict with the practicality of their aims
fourth, as far as i can tell, that is not ngo’s objection at all. what he seems to be concerned about is the possibility that rationalists will make serious progress on actually taking over the world and make terrible things happen once they do. i don’t take this possibility seriously at all. fundamentally, rationalists are lapdogs, forever licking the negligently outstretched hands of billionaires. they cause real harm as lackeys of the ultrawealthy and vectors for the diseases of racism, eugenics, etc, but to take ngo’s concerns seriously i would have to buy into the same fantasy of magical omnipotence he’s pointing to, because there seems to be no other path from here to rationalist dictatorship.
in all honesty we would love it if doing this were our job but there is no pathway to that that we can see. we just do it b/c it’s really fun
our pay is our satisfaction in having inflicted it on others as well
new odium symposium episode. we examine the foundational TERF text, janice raymond’s “the transsexual empire,” which turns out to be about how trans people are a big pharma conspiracy
https://www.patreon.com/posts/12-invasion-of-w-152915964
www.odiumsymposium.com for links to other platforms
one of the brain geniuses at bluesky
wrt to the first part, nick consistently outmaneuvers people who bring him onto their platforms. he’s honestly brilliant at understanding who the audience is, what frame he’s appearing in, and how to signal given those circumstances. i didn’t understand until i started prepping for this episode that nick is actually lazy and incurious in almost the exact same way alex jones is. dan and jordan notice and call out how he effortlessly establishes dominance over alex, but i think there’s a subtler game going on where nick manages to appear competent and informed compared to alex, and you don’t realize that’s just an artifact of conversational skill until you hear nick on his own show.
wrt to the second part, i could not agree more and i’m very glad to hear that is a takeaway because it is absolutely something i was hoping to communicate. that’s the freudianness of it all, how these existing patterns of relations to another get played out and reenacted through the audience’s relationship to nick, and vice versa
i think this is exactly why they had to come up with - or rather, misappropriate - the concept of coupled vs decoupled thinking. when they (especially the more, ahem, human biodiversity minded of them) fold ridiculous claims about what constitutes virtuous cognition into scientific and sophisticated sounding terminology, it makes those claims seem aligned with the broader sales pitch of rationalism
also that scott quote is excellent. i hadn’t heard that one before
if we had made the podcast series on rationalists, their importance as useful idiots for billionaires was the structure i wanted to hang the whole thing on. so this is a gratifying read. that said i think the ideas here will be familiar to many stubsack readers
The rationalist view of the world assumes, at some level, that the relevant actors are optimizing for well-understood, predictable variables and a clear understanding of what best serves their self-interest. What it cannot account for is bad faith, impulsiveness, ideological motivation untethered from evidence, random instances of force majeure, and personal whims and petty rivalries.
i will go further and say that not accounting for such things is considered virtuous in rationalist ideology
fun fact: even vixra has had an anti ai paper policy for idk how long, at least ten months
https://bsky.app/profile/scgriffith.bsky.social/post/3lsek4cpnpk2n