r/SneerClub archives
newest
bestest
longest
In his defense of the Unabomber, Roko confirms he’s had sex (https://twitter.com/rokomijic/status/1660591035569799171?s=46&t=Jh6AFED-yfbLv5W34trf7g)
83

You are not supposed to spend the prime of your life photocopying stuff and doing PowerPoints. You’re supposed to chop wood, hunt and maybe wage war.

Umm, Roko, if that’s what you think would lead to a more fulfilling life, there’s nothing stopping you from logging off of Twitter, closing your laptop, and getting really into bushcraft and backcountry camping.

I don't get the impression he'd be very good at waging war outside of a 4X strategy computer game.
I don’t get the impression he’d be good at anything at all outside of a 4x strategy game. At least I can do math, so i wouldn’t be totally useless.
>implying that mathematical ability isn't totally useless.
I agree it's *mostly* useless. But it's not *totally* useless. If your survival depends on computing homology groups, I've got you covered.
JDirichlet officially useful if we are trapped in one of those math puzzles with the jailer who makes you solve math puzzles.
Precisely. If the malicious AGI lines up infintiely many of us wearing black and white hats, and we all have to guess our own hat colors using only the information of the hats you can see in front of you -- then i can ensure only finitely many of us are killed asssuming the axiom of choice (and some generous assumptions of human computational faculty, which I'll put down to nanorobotic computronium or something).
Mfw the AGI is an intuitionist.
Eh, they could just argue that this shit is so addicting most humans can't resist the urge if it's easily accessible to them, him included. Or that he's using this tech to get the word out about it's danger, that small hypocrisy is worth it for the utility. Really the better point is that, yeah social media can kinda suck but I don't think the solution is returning to the fucking feudal era.
If the maximum of something is bad, then the minimum must be good!
I'm not saying he needs to return to feudalism, I'm saying that activities like "chopping wood" and "hunting" are pretty accessible to techbros in the Western world who have the free time to write weird essays on Twitter and plenty of us can spend our week making PowerPoints and then go do that after work. (waging war might be a little bit trickier, though)
Or start a fight club? BTW, the concern over "lost masculinity" has been a staple of fascist thought: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_of_masculinity_under_fascist_Italy, https://youtu.be/EoBQdBIqExs Also, re Ted Kaczynski, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecofascism
Also, there’s a war on. Hop to it son.
> Umm, Roko, if that's what you think would lead to a more fulfilling life, there's nothing stopping you from logging off of Twitter, closing your laptop, and getting really into bushcraft and backcountry camping. There absolutely is. It's just that that thing is called the modern state and capitalist economy.
Sure, I'm definitely being flippant here. But I think there's a larger point here that you see with a lot of pundits - where they're very quick to say "the real problem with society is that no one does X" - where X is something that they themselves don't do, haven't tried, and might not know anything about. It comes off as very "these are things _everyone else_ should do, while I continue to spend my free time coming up with thought experiments and writing weird essays on Twitter".
Plenty of people find a way to live a life with a lot of outdoors work. It doesn’t pay well but it’s possible.
Or even just work a normal job, and go backpacking on weekends/holidays. You'll wind up with not a lot of money because you're buying too much ultralight gear, but there are options between "never go outdoors" and "live in a cabin in the woods".
There's only so many jobs in that field (trust me, I know from personal experience) and most of those people might work outside but aren't *living* outside.
Do you really think we should be going back to a pre-agricultural society or that we should all be farmers?
Did I say that? Let me turn that around, do you think that people shouldn't be *able* to live that way if they choose to? Yes, it's an absurd question, but so is your's.
Of course people can’t choose to live any which way. Many choices are incompatible with life, and many choices force an imposition on third parties. There are some impositions society may choose to accept, but it is ridiculous to assert that anybody should be able to choose anything. I’m not sure how you imagine that question to be ridiculous, it seems you had precisely the opposite intent.
Not what I asked, which was should people *not* be able to live that way?
Nothing is stopping them, despite your assertion to the contrary. If you’re trying to make some sort of nuanced point you’ll have to work a bit harder to communicate beyond choosing a different word to italicize.
Yeah, this is a real case of "Physicians, heal thyself."

I wonder if being called an idiot by Yudkowsky that one time knocked something loose in his head

I am told by people who were at uni with him that he's always been like this
He’s obviously a thinker
It put him in hell for not getting called an idiot more times by more midwits.

I capital-L Love the fact that when faced with a fairly salient critique of one of his least defensible and most mask-off points, he literally replies with “nah” and a Star Trek reference

[deleted]
Also in his comment before that about trans people: > I think I'm just right and you don't like it Truly a Thinker.
"Exactly!"
I loved that his previous comment in that thread began with "I think I'm just right and you don't like it." To paraphrase a line from Shattered Glass, 'if it was sunny outside and Roko and I were both standing outside in the sun and Roko came to me and said, ‘It's a sunny day,’ I would immediately go check with two other people to make sure it was a sunny day.'

With the Unabomber?

EDIT: Read that worthless text block, and I’m pretty sure that the Unabomber would consider this guy a weird reactionary.

>EDIT: Read that worthless text block, and I'm pretty sure that the Unabomber would consider this guy a weird reactionary. He wrote an [essay on anarchoprimitivism](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-the-truth-about-primitive-life-a-critique-of-anarchoprimitivism) where he defined the most common and basic ideas and proceeded to debunk them one by one. The core thesis being something like "Even I, the Unabomber, don't believe in this bullshit."
He's criticizing leftist anprims there, not ecofascists. These guys usually don't try to hide that their ideas would kill millions of people. They might be mistaken about their own survival though (unlike Roko, who is obviously a thinker).
Yeah, mostly true. The first point about how much they actually had to work I think is still relevant. They vastly underestimate how hard that kind of life is. >They might be mistaken about their own survival though (unlike Roko, who is obviously a thinker). Definitely
There are millions of humans in jail that "think" like Mr. Mijan(sp?). He is going to provably hurt another human; just read his communications.
Kaczynksi criticizes ecofascists [here](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-ecofascism-an-aberrant-branch-of-leftism). I haven't read too much of his writings but I get the impression he's basically a nihilist about most human values, seeing a vastly reduced population as an end unto itself without caring much at all about the characteristics of the remaining human population apart from their living some kind of hunter-gatherer lifestyle. If that's the case I think it's hard to put him on a left-right axis, similar to radical anti-natalism or certain types of utopians, it's basically just a science-fictional fantasy of an end state with no coherent idea of how to get to it other than trying to persuade people through writing (and in his case terrorism, but I think that was mainly a way to force papers to publish his manifesto).
He's an ecofascist who doesn't like the label, that's really the extent of it.
I had in mind various historians and other thinkers (including Marxists) who define "fascism" in terms of a distinct cluster of features which may exclude some other right-wing authoritarians (like the military dictatorship in Argentina) or genocidal ideologies (like pre 20th century imperialism/colonialism). See for example historian Robert Paxton's [list](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/9268953-fascism-is-more-plausibly-linked-to-a-set-of-mobilizing) of distinguishing features of fascism. Would you agree with this kind of analysis and say Kaczynksi's self-made ideology fits into the cluster well, or are you using a broader definition of ecofascism?
You just admitted that "I haven't read too much of his writing", so no, you don't have in mind anything and you haven't done any analysis.
Well I've read his manifesto and a few of the pieces by him on theanarchistlibrary, but I did preface my comments with "I get the impression" and I was (and still am) open to correction when I asked you about the reason for your opinions in the last sentence of my previous comment.
Then you're lucky that I corrected you. Hope you don't make similar mistakes about opining on something without doing any analysis in future.
I did do an analysis, based on my understanding of what he believes vs. the definitions of fascism I mentioned, you didn't even answer my question about which part of that you disagree with (the definition, or whether his views fit it) let alone give any evidence for why I'm wrong. But I guess the point here is just to make snarky comments, so have fun with that I guess.
>I did do an analysis No you didn't, you said you "get the impression" based on something you "haven't read too much". That's not an analysis. >snarky comments These aren't snarky comments, this is very basic stuff about reading and having a firm grasp on a subject before you opine on it.
Nothing about the concept of "analysis" says it can't be based on a tentative understanding. And when I said "I did do an analysis", I was talking about the comparison between my tentative understanding of Kaczynksi's views (that he doesn't really care much at all about the structure of human society in the future after his imagine anti-tech revolution, only that it has a small ecological footprint because of small population and low tech) vs. what matters to fascists (who care quite a lot about the form of society in an imagined fascist future, as can be seen in all the items on Paxton's list for example). I wasn't saying I had posted any analysis of how I arrived at that understanding of what Kaczynksi believes in the first place, like I said that was just based on what I had read. But if my description of his views is the thing you're objecting to, rather than objecting to the idea that the views I described wouldn't qualify as "fascism", I could look back and find quotes that gave me that impression, if you were willing to give some quotes of his that argue against my reading. >this is very basic stuff about reading and having a firm grasp on a subject before you opine on it. We aren't submitting pieces for peer review here, just having a conversation on a discussion forum, I don't think most people including academics would agree with that it's obvious "basic stuff" that there's something wrong with expressing tentative opinions about things you're only partially informed about in the context of ordinary conversations, as long as you're open to counter-evidence.
>Nothing about the concept of "analysis" says it can't be based on a tentative understanding. That's not an "analysis", that's just talking bullshit.
>For obvious reasons, a white-supremacist movement cannot be worldwide. Even if a movement does not claim superiority for any one race or culture, but merely insists on keeping the world’s various races or cultures separate and distinct, it will not be able to bring technology under control, because its separatist attitude will inevitably promote rivalry and/or suspicion among the various races or ethnic groups. Each race or ethnic group, for the sake of its own security, will try to make sure that it has more power — and therefore more technology — than other races or ethnic groups. It follows that any movement that seeks to limit technology must make every effort to minimize divisions or differences among races or ethnic groups.[3] Purely as a matter of strategy, racial and cultural blending must be promoted. (...) >The ecofascists’ fixation on race puts them in the same family with the leftists, who likewise are fixated on race. The difference between the two is only that to the ecofascists the “white” race is the hero of the story, whereas the ordinary left makes the same race into the villain. The ecofascists and the ordinary leftists are only two sides of the same (counterfeit) coin. Is this some fishook theory in action
Instant classic. No notes.

I love the implicit sneer that this is more noteworthy than the wall of text above it

trying hard to get on the FBI watch list, I guess

“Just like how the start of the immigration era (1955) had ethnostates” - 1955 had european Empires still ruling over all but 5 african countries, Asia being no less diverse than it now is, and even in Europe these beloved ethnostates only appeared 10 years earlier, largely due to one Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin. Did this guy never heard of the world outside of the states and Canada??

I never thought I’d say this but twitter was better when it had strict character limits.

My "we forced a newspaper to retract the accusations that I am a weirdo sex pest" T-shirt has raised many questions that are already answered by my T-shirt
The article Roko states defamed him: https://voxeurop.eu/en/artificial-intelligence-service-far-right-looking-fratelli-ditalia/ The correction: > A previous version of this article claimed that Mr. Mijic had been banned from MIRI events. This was incorrect. We sincerely regret the error. So I am inferring the article originally stated that Roko was banned from MIRI events for being a sex pest.
Even if that accusation is not true, doesnt mean he isnt a weirdo sex pest on other occasions, as shown above. And a retraction can also just mean they didnt want to fight him. Dgerard has mentioned the ban and roko never went after him as far as I know, and iirc dgerard is in the uk (which has very weird libel laws iirc. Rowling uses them to go after people who call her transphobic). But yes, it would be better if dgerard provided a source. Of course it doesnt help that iirc one of the accusers of abuse is dead, and the Rationalists closed the ranks a called her mentally ill in reaction to the accusations (which they do a lot, including scott, who knows isolation like that makes abuse more likely not less (Another weird example, check the list of people banned from [SSC meetups here](https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/12/15/open-thread-143/)) E: considering the actions of the LWsphere, what is more likely is that sex pests do not get banned at all. [For example](https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/out?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bloomberg.com%2Fnews%2Ffeatures%2F2023-03-07%2Feffective-altruism-s-problems-go-beyond-sam-bankman-fried%3FaccessToken%3DeyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJzb3VyY2UiOiJTdWJzY3JpYmVyR2lmdGVkQXJ0aWNsZSIsImlhdCI6MTY3ODIwNjY2MiwiZXhwIjoxNjc4ODExNDYyLCJhcnRpY2xlSWQiOiJSUjVBRzVUMEFGQjQwMSIsImJjb25uZWN0SWQiOiIzMDI0M0Q3NkIwMTg0QkEzOUM4MkNGMUNCMkIwNkExNiJ9.nbOjP4JQv-TuJwoXaeBYhHvcxYGk0GscyMslQFL4jfA) (discussion of this article [on EA](https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/7b9ZDTAYQY9k6FZHS/abuse-in-lesswrong-and-rationalist-communities-in-bloomberg)) But yes, this is not proof Roko was banned from MIRI events. (the EA discussion do mention Vassar and Dill were abusers). (Yes, my linking to the bdsm thing was a motte/bailey like thing, but I pulled it in reaction to him going from 'sex pest' to that specific accusation, thought the symmetry was funny).
The first archived version[1] states > A man called Roko Mijic – a self-described “tradhumanist” barred from MIRI events for sexual harassment[...] To be honest I'm fine with the author making a mistake, getting informed about it, and removing the statement. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20221102093356/https://voxeurop.eu/en/artificial-intelligence-service-far-right-looking-fratelli-ditalia/
Certainly. And as that specific accusation has been going round here l, I would also like to see some proof of it. But otoh, I also get why people who have experienced it would not want to talk openly about it. Esp as the community has a tendency to protect the powerful/accused.

Bravo truly the greatest accomplishment a rationalist can achieve.

Bahahaha this little exchange here where he misreads the room and digs further absolutely sends me.

You misspelled ‘alleges’

stealing ‘obviously a thinker’ as flair

the industrial revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race

You basically made his point but without mentioning the Unabomber - see it can be done!

I’m not a fan of r/SneerClub and I still laughed out loud at the title of this post.

What is it you don't like about this place?
This place is where I come for my yud-adjacent vaxx shots. Whenever I feel like "huh, some of those ideas aren't so bad" I see a top ranked post here and instantly come to my senses.
You shouldn't feel bad that every once in a while these people come across a good idea that you agree with. It's that their entire stated purpose is to come to good ideas in a logically-based method. When that method is shit to begin with and results in less than a 50/50 ratio of good ideas, you have to ask what the point is.
The vibes tbh.