r/SneerClub archives
When trying to figure out why leftists left their subreddit, SSCers choose wild speculation over reading (https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/8mqh4t/culture_war_roundup_for_memorial_day_2018_please/dzpke3r/)

One thing people seem to miss is that /r/slatestarcodex isn’t an independent subreddit, it’s a subreddit built around a particular blog. The culture there will always, to at least some extent, reflect Scott’s opinions and Scott’s ideas of what online discussion should look like.

Naturally, with posts like You Are Still Crying Wolf, the Kolmogorov one, the recent ones about Jordan Peterson and the IDW, and so on, he’s going to attract a certain type of fanbase. It doesn’t matter how much the mods ask people to “not wage the culture war” if Scott is mostly drawing an audience lately that is already on one side.

The bottom line is that it’s his blog, not mine, and I don’t have the ability or the right to change what he posts or how he moderates his comments. (Neither does anyone on /r/slatestarcodex, really.) But I don’t see any reason not to distance myself from his fanbase if I don’t feel like I belong among them.

It's like a smaller-scale re-enactment of /r/samharris after Harris interviewed Charles Murray, except with a dedicated safe-space for pseudo-intellectual bigotry rather than a general, diffuse concern with IQ and heritability as a wedge into pseudo-intellectual bigotry.

I love that in one thread you have posters claiming that left-wingers are downvoting themselves to score free sympathy… and other posters admitting they reflexively downvote posts if they see a user they dislike. And both are upvoted.

Outrageously motivated reasoning in the service of racism and fascism is probably the biggest line item.

Please reflect on this being the reason for “leftists” leaving their sub and not just any person with mainstream political views regardless of party affiliation. What a dumb, pretentious echo chamber but at least they recognize that last bit.

> leftists are leaving because this is a place where they have to rationally justify their ideas. (+9) I plead guilty! Yes, I actually do get tired of rationally justifying why bigotry is bad, why we shouldn't try racial segregation again, why we should probably resist fascism rather than defend it, why science is real, and so forth. It's not that I'm tired of losing those arguments (though judging by votes and replies I certainly did), but that I'm not even interested in having them anymore. To me those subjects are settled - have been since before I was born - and even if it might have been a useful exercise to revisit the reasoning at some point in my life, I don't get much out of revisiting it on a daily basis. I'd rather talk about current issues than old consensuses. Analogy: a biology discussion forum wherein someone opines that all the evolution-believers are leaving because they're tired of having to prove that evolution is real every time they try to talk about cool insects or epigenetics controversies or whatever, and they're generally not that interested in fossils or carbon-dating anyway. Or a more *charitable* analogy: a physics discussion forum that's dominated by relativistic cosmologist types who wonder why all the quantum people are leaving instead of staying to talk about dark matter all the time. When people's knowledge/interest diverges so far upstream of what's currently hot, there aren't very many worthwhile subjects that both sides are able or willing to talk about at the same level. America's right and left hardly even talk about the same controversies, or hear about them in the news in the first place. If you follow news on the left, you'll be constantly hearing about Trump's latest tweets and the Russia probe and the children who disappeared from immigrant concentration camps; if you follow news on the right, it's the latest outrage from campus social-justice activists and the Hillary Clinton email investigation and the children who were molested in a pizza parlor. What are the good people on both sides even supposed to talk about when they have a conversation about politics? EDIT: let me fortify this with an actual example. Toward the end of the time I wasted in r/ssc, [Masterpiece v. Colorado](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission) came up in discussion. I noted that the pro-gay side's argument is the simple one: the patissier wants to discriminate on the basis of customers' sexual orientation, and public businesses can't do that according to the state constitution (analogous to the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 except it includes sexual orientation). The question, as usual, is whether his religious freedom entitles him to break civil-rights law. Response from the Rational gentlesirs: Religious freedom's not even the issue, because maybe it *should* be legal for business owners to discriminate in the first place! Why don't we just try that and see what happens? --- Also, from the beginning of that comment: > To play devil's advocate, At this point I think the devil has more than adequate legal representation and doesn't really need any more advocates, not even *pro malo*. [Or it's this.](https://www.theonion.com/man-who-plays-devils-advocate-really-just-wants-to-be-a-1819568992)
This is a comment that says a lot of things I felt (though I don’t think the time I spent there was a waste more than anywhere else). I also felt, though, that I ended up having to write more and more. It just took up a lot of time because someone would write one or two not very well thought through sentences, and then writing a response to those sentences would take several paragraphs. And the new people who were joining seemed to be getting ruder and ruder, and seemed to have less interesting challenges to what I believe and more and more predictable arguments. It felt like a duty to reply, rather than a chance to learn from a different view point and work on my own thinking. One thing that might have helped, I wish that the rules against “waging the culture war” and comments having to be at least two out of the three of *true, necessary, and kind* were more rigidly enforced. Anything like “leftists are leaving because this is a place where they have to rationally justify their ideas. (+9)” seems to me to be explicitly waging the culture war, rather than discussing it. Some of the New Testament uses fantastic imagery sticks even in my Jewish brain. One of the best is Matthew 7:3. In the archetypal glory of the KJV, it’s: >And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? And in the more modern scholarly NRSV, it’s: >Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Obviously, I have opinions on who has specks and who has logs, but it was eventually shocking the lack of self-criticism and self-reflection that many of the most prominent posters had. One of the SSC blog posts that bothered me the most was “Yes, We Have Noticed the Skulls” because, well, I left feeling a lot of skulls went unnoticed in the community. On the subject of “muggle realism”, one skull obviously missed is that literally all previous systems which insisted on “natural, innate” hierarchies have just proven to be very wrong, whether we’re talking nobles over commoners, men over women (when women were essentially denied higher education), whites over everyone else, English over Irish, WASPs over Catholics, toilers over kulaks, Germans over Slavs, Japanese over co-prosperous East Asians, peasants over people who wear glasses, what have you. All of these hierarchies were considered scientific to the degree that science existed, ordained to the degree that religion ruled, but everywhere certainly natural and obvious by their proponents. There’s no sense in the scene that these historical hierarchies were entirely wrong (or at least mostly wrong) and certainly, *certainly* underestimated the capacities and abilities of the lower group by a considerable margin in every single case. This time is different? There was no sense of history, and how can you see the skulls if you have no sense of history? Not having a sense of history is itself skull. Scott said institutions are Conservative or Neutral, while that’s an interesting argument for America since the rise of Fox News *maybe*, but that just wasn’t the case in the 1950’s, when there were basically two major Conservative institutions: the National Review and Human Affairs (and the crazy John Birch Society). In the 60’s, the new non-neutral institutions were all on the left (in media, alt weeklies are an obvious example, but also all the new political organizations with vibrant energy seemed to have been on the left as well). I felt like whenever someone did make an interesting point, one that changed my mind, there’d be this tendency to go, “And that’s the way it’s always been! It’s natural and innate for things to be this way.” No, actually, this maybe the current equilibrium, but like most such things in the social world, it’s a historically contingent and I can think of several periods when there were different equilibria. But it all goes back to just the like, lack of intellectual modesty, the decline of the “well I might be wrong here, let me see,” that I think attracted me to the place in the first place, the failure to think that there might be specks and logs “on many sides, on many sides”. I think a lot of the users (liberal and conservative) who posted frequently when I first got there were interested in the culture war not as a place to bash the other side but a place to discuss things and maybe be able to pluck out some blinding beams and motes. As time went on, a lower proportion of new comers seemed interested in the same. And a higher portion of them seemed interested in discussing out and out reactionary things. One last common beam, one last thing that bothered me was also a lot about individualism and individual rights and how dare people on our side be treated as anything but individuals.... but those *groups* on the other side are awful. And again, this wasn’t everyone there. I probably even say the real problem was a very active minority. There are still people who post there who I think are interesting. But overall it just seemed like wading through all these things took more time than I could justify based on what I was getting out of it. I don’t know, I'm sure there are also other things that bothered me, I’m sure on a different day I might list different things, but I thought you articulated that particularly well and I wanted to add on to it.
>Tribalism is the mind-killer. >Greeting, humanoid. I hail from the gray tribe.
dude this "tribe" thing is getting on my nerves
You only feel that way because you're a member of the "anti-tribe" tribe.
It hurts to be so purely rational and unburdened with Identity Politics.
Wrong, I'm actually a [universalist](http://quillette.com/2017/10/05/universalism-not-centrism/), but not a unitarian.
lmao wtf is that can someone explain to me what's up with quillette? i've been doing some light reading lately and this site is hilarious
It's an online rag founded by Claire Lehmann, who started off as an HBD blogger. It's pretty much dork web concentrate. https://theoutline.com/post/2307/quillette-claire-lehmann-conservative-snowflakes?zd=1&zi=5nxg3acq
[Areo](http://areomagazine.com) is the same thing but much, much worse.
No, Quillette is worse than Areo. Its whole editorial line is to propagate HBD nonsense and adjacent bio-troofs, and they constantly push it extremely hard and extremely dishonestly, no matter what. Areo publishes a lot of garbage, and have a similarly ridiculous tabloid editorial line, but they're also significantly less malicious and ruthless. because they're just stupid, and Lehmann isn't stupid. Edit: although, looking at their current front page, they've really spun things into overdrive since I last checked.
Looking at those headlines, why don't they just replace that magazine with that Mallard Fillmore cartoon going "SJWs! SJWs! SJWs!"
>To play **devil's advocate**, here is an alternative idea: leftists are leaving because this is a place where they have to rationally justify their ideas. Playing devil's advocate isn't earnestly disagreeing, but using a dumb argument, lol Maybe if the "rationalists" made up a new term for it like "tempering the water" they'd remember it better
Having to re-litigate whether or not Jim Crow was bad every five minutes is fucking exhausting.
Howdy, I'm the second commenter you linked there. My apologies if I've misunderstood your norms there. Is there a productive conversation we could have about this? Bridge the divide a little?
You left out my first point, though. >1) The feeling of social isolation and being in a hostile mob that leftists may get due to the upvote:downvote disparity between them and rightist interlocutors. This one seems fixable. We could hide the score on comments, limit who can vote, or something. I don't know what's technically feasible, but I think it would be fine for the health of this community to deemphasize voting. This was the first issue I brought up, and the one I thought there was some hope of fixing without just tipping the seesaw the other way. And I think I'm right about this, based on your comment right here: > I know when I see an uncharitable explanation get +30 like yours does [2], it dissuades me from trying to participate because it signals there's a decently sized crowd that isn't looking to engage critically to find answers --- they're just trying to continue the culture war from general society online. I am confused by your second footnote. You clearly don't need to explain that specific point to me. I already expressed it. I agree that leftist SSC commenters aren't your average leftist, and that leftist is not equal to SJW. I completely understand that the SSC sub is dominated by rightists and centrists who tolerate the right more easily than they do the left. That leads to the voting disparities, and the feeling of being in a hostile mob. I get it, and I'm trying to propose something that can reasonably be done about it, and I almost wish I hadn't brought up the second point at all, since that's all anyone on this side has seized upon. But I did bring it up for a reason. I think the HBD ban was a bad move and I don't want to see more moderation in that direction. I don't think censorious, shaming social justice types are the majority of leftists who've left that sub, but unlike you I _have_ seen some of them, and under the current regime they do get banned. I could name names but I think some of them post here and I don't really want to pick fights.
The hostile mob feeling [is also from our experience posting there](https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/6rrz5x/culture_war_roundup_for_the_week_following_august/dlgke9q/?context=5). And an example of unequal upvotes that was particularly annoying at the time and extremely annoying in hindsight is [when I suggested a year ago that the Trump-Russia scandal could involve money laundering](https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/6ay35k/culture_war_roundup_for_week_following_may_13/dhsihtr/?context=3) and the reply saying that I wasn't completely batshit crazy got more upvotes.
I see your comment at 3 points, the guy who rudely dismissed you at 1 point, and a moderator gave him a warning for doing it. I have noticed that upvotes/downvotes are hard to know exactly, they change depending on whether I'm logged in or not, or whenever I refresh my browser. You could be seeing something I'm not seeing.
The first example comment is only an example of actual hostility, the vote totals are mostly ok there. [It was more than just that comment that got the mod warning.](https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/6rrz5x/culture_war_roundup_for_the_week_following_august/dlg5r4q/) It's also worth noting that the evidence given in the thread did not change that poster's opinion at all. Even to this day as far as I can tell.
It sounds like we're not that far apart on SSC meta-issues TBH. If votes were all hidden, and the moderators were more strict about rightists being uncharitable, do you believe it could feel like sufficiently neutral ground for useful discussions to happen between right and left? I'm not sure if that would be enough. The comments section on the main blog has on occasion been a place where you could find both sides politely exchanging ideas, but it's hard to maintain a balance. If there's too many rightists who post at SSC, will it inevitably feel like hostile territory?
Define "SJW" and define "censorious, shaming social justice types". I recently went on my politics facebook group, which is 95% people who are to the left of Eurocommunism, and asked them what they thought 'SJW' meant. I got a ton of wildly different answers, with probably a plurality for "it doesn't mean anything at all". If we are to have a productive discussion with the Rationalist right, we need to start tabooing such terms.
Like most right-wingers who don't understand the left, I'm pretty sure your issue is that you think there is a coherent thing that can reasonably be called the left. There *absolutely* is not. Liberals hate social democrats hate communists hate anarchists hate liberals, and so on. Without the existence of a common enemy, the conflicts on the left would be every bit as vicious as those between the left and right. So when you try to find out what leftists believe, of course you're going to get a schizophrenic mess from which you can read anything you like, just like you would if you tried to figure out what Americans believed.
I was a leftist for a long time. I'm not blind to anything you outlined here, and I'd wager I could pass an Ideological Turing Test for many left wing subgroups. It feels like this is becoming a semantic point about my use of the phrase "leftist speech norms," by which I meant a specific thing, but which others interpreted as an unfair insult to other groups. I'll try to be more precise.
If the mods there were serious about free speech they would unban me. I'm just a logical Maoist trying to explain things to people who haven't experienced true rationality before. For this thought-crime I was unjustly banned.
I’m not here to become part of this place. Just an outsider passing through. You won’t see me outside of this thread.
If you're hoping we can all charitably steelman Charles Murray together, I don't think it's going to go well. Most people here, I believe, are sick of the SSC style of debate over far-right idols and other subjects that have been rehashed hundreds of times.
Then let's not do that :) What can we do though? Is there anything more than flamewar that can exist between right and left at this point? I also am not interested in rehashing the details of the same few fulcrums of culture war that always get fought over. If we're to be enemies, can we negotiate? Can we have a space where we don't need to fight? I'm mostly here because I saw several comments both here and replying to me at r/ssc saying that it's a failing of rationalists that they never talk to those who disagree, and only knock down strawmen.
This is a [pretty good piece](https://www.wired.com/story/sam-harris-and-the-myth-of-perfectly-rational-thought/) that explores why the supreme uber-rationalists of the Intellectual Dark Web might be fooling themselves about their own freedom from Identity Politics. It echoes my suspicion that the goal of overcoming bias through SSC-style discourse is probably a pipe dream, and that any social prescriptions thusly divined will always work out suspiciously well for SSC and IDW fanboys. EDIT: If you think climate change is real, is caused partly by human activity, and is a more urgent matter for discussion than whether or not blacks are dumb or Mike Cernovich is being silenced, we could start there.
The easiest way to start is to scrap all of the blue/red/gray tribe stuff. For one, many of the most thorough critiques of "SJW-ism" came from the left before the term was even invented.
I think it's unlikely, for meta-reasons. One thing I see happening all the time is the rightwingers go "well if leftists post here they get downvoted and mocked, but if rightists post there, they get banned". But in fact both places probably have the same community rule, namely 'misbehaving gets you banned'. But since they disagree on what counts as misbehaving, the results are very different. Sneerclub, as I understand it, has become a haven for SSC refugees for an important part because there is no agreement with prevailing SSC attitudes at what counts as bad behavior. It seems unlikely to me that that would be resolved without changing community composition. This aside from the fact many of us are deeply unimpressed with the Rationalist subculture in general, so that a neutral ground would also have to shed a lot of Rationalosphere shibboleths before it would truly be one (which is why LW or SSC don't succeed).
Since you're interested in /r/sneerclub's leftist perspectives, you could try reading some of the books recommended here: https://www.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/comments/8j2sp9/if_you_could_prescribe_5_required_reading_books/ And then you can come back and post here any questions you have.
The solution is, as always, to read Marx.
> Is there anything more than flamewar that can exist between right and left at this point? If you can accept that it's perfectly reasonable to think that equality is preferable to hierarchy, *even if you personally disagree*, than yes. However, the SSC right tends to believe that "science" is unimpeachable and it unquestionably prescribes hierarchy. That's where the hangups come from.
I think a pretty big part is divergent hidden assumptions / priors about the world. If two persons with such divergent viewpoints want to have a discussion, this is possible but a lot of work. In context of large groups, people who are disinterested in playing edgelord but have a divergent viewpoint from the majority will have a hard time: "not edgelord" means that you have a very limited interest to re-litigate things you consider long settled, and if a strong majority disagrees... well, not productive. The way I see /r/slatestarcodex now, we sneerers would need to have fun re-litigating long-made points with people who have very divergent priors on the world, and who are not even aware of their biases. I mean, we have our own biases and it is very cool when we figure one of them out, that's a way of learning. But deep discussions can only happen when inferential distance is low; hearing the same people make the same (eg HBD) points again and again is just not interesting, and my budget for "charitably engaging scientific racism" is "once in a lifetime" and already spent. In other words: Either the quality needs to go way up (comments that fail to take into account shared background knowledge get ruthlessly downvoted / moderated, like on lesswrong[*]), or we need to self-segregate the community along low-inferential-distance lines, and only meet each other on special occasions. I think this is what happened. Long-term, my favorite state of affairs would be for most of /r/slatestarcodex to move to /r/hardcorerationality, and have the community split three-ways: /r/slatestarcodex as a more neutral ground with much, much fewer and higher quality comments, plus the two spinoffs. Because we are the sneerclub and are mean: That way most /r/slatestarcodex commenters can finally get the moderators they deserve. [*] lesswrong has different problems that are best summarized as "doomsday cult".
Yeah. My experience here has been interesting. I've talked to some people here who've seemed genuine and thoughtful, and have been remarkably charitable to an enemy. There's enough common ground in those cases that it feels like there's room for "civilized culture war," in a Napoleonic or feudal Japanese sense, where there's an ethic to one's treatment of the enemy that your own side will hold you to. I try to do that on SSC, our theoretical neutral ground. I call out and report low quality rightists more than I do leftists, but that's also easy because low quality leftists have been banned more aggressively. I think the paradigm you describe of three subs could work, but it would require a moderation regime at SSC that I can't figure out how to establish. Also, I have had other interactions here with users that I don't think would even be interested in such a space. There's been these awkward attempts at performative dunking, where some here have done a big windup and unleashed all their pent up rage at the median SSC user, and none of it is really relevant to my actual thoughts or history. I'm not sure what to do there besides say "nice dunk," and move on. That's probably just Sneer culture that I don't relate to.
> "civilized culture war," in a Napoleonic or feudal Japanese sense There's something less brutal about canister shot or being run through in a yari push? That's part of the problem - you're leaning on idealized stereotypes rather than a deep sense of what actually happens, which is often ugly filth.
Leaning on idealized stereotypes is what being rational's all about, though.
Anyone who would call Napoleonic or feudal Japanese era warfare more civilized has absolutely no sense of history - but that's hardly surprising.
FWIW, I don't think most people here consider you an enemy, in the sense that we are in a fight. That is, there are some people we sneer at as "go back to stormfront where you belong", but most sneers are "how can these guys be so boneheaded to have eaten up all the $xyz-propaganda while claiming thoughtful rationality". Regarding perfomative dunking, yeah, that's part of the culture here. View it with as much humor as you can, it's a roasting. Good political cabaret should be mean, funny, insightful and true (even if sometimes exaggerated).
Maybe? Depending on what you mean by "this". I think you've characterized the norms on /r/slatestarcodex adequately (or at least, what they aspire to). I just think the inference you've drawn (these norms cause leftists to leave) is incorrect. Especially in light of posts by actual people who left, laying out their reasons for leaving.
Okay, I read this one: https://www.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/comments/818b04/less_of_a_sneer_and_more_of_a_cathartic_rant/ I get where that user is coming from, although I'm not sure what to do about it. It references some pretty substantial divides in epistemic and philosophical approach between them and the typical r/ssc user. Reading that post leaves me largely with the impression that there's just a good reason both this sub and r/ssc exist. Two tribes that are very far apart in the way they see the world inhabited the same space, and one ended up dominating. The other left. I don't deny that me from ten years ago would not have enjoyed r/ssc, and would have been more comfortable here. That sub is dominated culturally by what you'd probably consider an enemy tribe. So what do we do about it? Sometimes I recognize a Sneerclubber's username when they post on r/ssc, and I try to be friendly and find something to talk about with them other than flaming, but that rarely goes anywhere. The truth is, I'm not a leftist, and I'm not going to lead with the right shibboleths up front to make the conversation comfortable. This makes me feel like patchwork is good.
> to make the conversation comfortable. Ok this is perhaps something you could work on. This isn't about comfort, and it's not about displaying the right shibboleths. (What a condescending word, by the way. Plenty of people here put in their time in the rationalist community, and gave up on it through exhaustion or boredom. Nobody here is afraid of an intellectual debate.) There's a values disconnect. The values of /r/sneerclub are a superset of the values of /r/ssc. From the liberal/leftist perspective of /r/sneerclub, truth and science and rationality are all very important, but so are equal rights. Whereas to /r/ssc, human suffering appears to be an object of intellectual curiosity. If you have the same values as your debate opponent, you can have an actual conversation. If you don't, you can't.
> Plenty of people here put in their time in the rationalist community, and gave up on it through exhaustion or boredom. Nobody here is afraid of an intellectual debate. This risks implying that those of us who always thought it was dumb are afraid of intellectual debate.
Those of you who thought it was always dumb have the kind of innate good taste that the rest of us didn't! :)
I mean I guess in my case I just read novels
So did I, but that didn't stop me from buying into all this bullshit at first.
put it down to my inconsistent parenting then
>If you have the same values as your debate opponent, you can have an actual conversation. If you don't, you can't. I think we probably don't have the same values, but I'm not sure I agree with your conclusion. Like, yeah, we're enemies. We are trying to get to very different futures. We can hide in our respective echo chambers and trade barbs, or get into all out flame wars. But is that it? If we're going to be bumping into each other in meatspace, wrestling over atoms that we each want to use for something else, is it worthwhile to understand each other better? Is there some negotiation that can happen, to potentially avoid costly and unnecessary conflicts on both sides? Is there only total war at this point?
>But is that it? Yes, that is "it". Conflict over irreconcilable conceptions of the Good is simply the natural and inevitable human condition. And from what I can see, your increasingly open embrace of fascism (and that of the ssc sub in general) is finally waking you up to the truth that "rationalism" and "objectivity" has always been a false self-image designed to mask the nerds' Will to Power, and that the reason everyone else has treated you the way they have is because they have always understood this truth about you and your "grey team" far better than yourself.
Best of luck in the wars to come.
If we — or people like us — never end up in conflict in meatspace, that would be swell. I expect the culture war to continue, though. And to intensify. Maybe I’m wrong. We’ll see.
Thanks, cheers to you too bud.
You’re doing a great job. Good dunk. Ya got me.
That's really interesting. You were once extremely right wing and I was once extremely left wing. We've both moved away from that into very different stuff, it seems. The reason I'm not engaging with your arguments is that the positions you put in my mouth to sneer at aren't mine. Like several others here, it feels like you're using me as an opportunity to address the median SSC user, and I'm not really that. I wouldn't describe myself as a "grey triber" or a "rationalist" or anything like that, and I think I disagree with rationalist icons like Scott and Eliezer on more things than I agree with them. But, I think I disagree with them in a very different direction from most users here. Someone else in this thread described Sneerclub as a superset of SSC ideals. That they believed in rationality and empiricism _plus_ equal rights. I go in the opposite direction. I don't believe in equal rights, or humanism. I think might be consciously the villain you all suspect lurks at the heart of "rationalism." I don't believe that there's some rational process by which everyone who's "smart and logical" will naturally arrive at my value system. I agree with all of you that that's a naive failing of the stereotypical rationalist. I think you're all rational people pursuing the things you value. I just don't share those values. I don't believe in intrinsic worth to human beings. I traveled ideologically from anarcho-communism to anarcho-capitalism to libertarianism to neoreaction, and I'm still probing the further edges of the outer right. I just don't care about the things you care about, and my primary interest is ensuring that I'm on the nice side of the wall with the machine guns pointed the other way. I want access to resources, I want accelerated technological development, and I want to push the frontier of human achievement, not equalize it. If any of you think this makes me monstrous, I am confident you are not alone.
I didn’t mean to imply you necessarily agreed with the other poster when I said “you all,” my bad. It was a reference to the Zeitgeist here, the median user. You’re correct that it was similar to what I complained about you doing to me. Apologies if that was frustrating. I’m not sure I’m interested in actually continuing this conversation, though. Neither of us really stopped to ask the other what we actually think, but I find the tone and attitude here not conducive to that anyway. That could be a failing on my part from some perspectives. But I am what I am, and I don’t enjoy the sneering and flaming the way some do.
There is no culture war
Then I guess we’re on the same side. Cheers, comrade.
/r/sneerclub reads a superset of what /r/ssc does. /r/sneerclub is not in an echo chamber. /r/sneerclub has already read and understood all it cares to of /r/ssc. /r/sneerclub has, believe it or not, nerds of the same intellectual caliber and bent as /r/ssc. That you continue to use words like 'echo chamber' shows you don't get this. That's one reason productive conversation isn't happening--you don't seem to understand that sane, smart people can see the same things you do and come to the opposite conclusions about their worth. Do you have any notion of how arrogant and blinkered you seem? > Is there some negotiation that can happen, to potentially avoid costly and unnecessary conflicts on both sides? Are you serious? The worst thing that's ever happened is people maybe getting their feelings hurt. You need to get out more. I'm sincerely not trying to make fun of you, or be a dick, but that's just very strange that you think mutual dislike between two extremely obscure internet forums could possibly lead to costly conflicts. Neither group has significant political pull in the real world, and as I'm sure every single person on both subs is aware, most people don't give a shit about our interests.
On your last point, I’m not talking about conflicts on Reddit. I’m talking about conflicts outside. Did you read the sentence immediately before the one you quoted? Also... your comment just feels totally disconnected from mine. I’m not sure how to take it. From my perspective, I said: >Yeah, we’re probably enemies based on our opposing values. Is there anything worthwhile to say to each other? And you replied with: >My side is good and smart and your side is bad and dumb. You’re in an echo chamber but I’m not. Like... is that basically a “no” to my question? **Replying to your edits:** I don’t know where to begin with this really. A lot of your comment now reads as a criticism of a person that isn’t me, and of things I wasn’t saying. Like, I wasn’t talking about conflict on _our subs_ with my comment. I was talking about the larger left/right conflict, and the factionalization spreading throughout the West. I also think you might be under the mistaken assumption that all of the comments called out here from the thread on r/ssc were me. I’m not at all surprised that intelligent people could come to different conclusions than me. Like... I don’t know. I feel like there’s all this weird baggage attached to this conversation that isn’t actually related to me.I suspect this is what it feels like for the people here when they go to the other sub.
Yes, I did read your whole post. I'm well-aware that for the conflicts I happen to care about (ICE, #blacklivesmatter, #metoo, is antifa cool or not, etc) rationalists are completely irrelevant. They are nowhere close to being a majority, or even sizeable minority, of the Republican party. You said this: > If we're going to be bumping into each other in meatspace, wrestling over atoms that we each want to use for something else, is it worthwhile to understand each other better? What is so fucking hard about understanding that /r/sneerclub DOES understand /r/ssc already? I volunteered at the second Singularity Summit. I've been to rationalist meet-ups in real life. I've even been to group dinners with Yudkowsky. After careful consideration, I came to the conclusion that LW/SSC and the rationalist community in general were terrible. Plenty of people went through similar journeys and have posted their criticisms already. That was why I had to point out your use of the phrase 'echo chamber' was terrible. Literally, no, since many of us have spent a lot of time on /r/ssc and the like, we are literally not in an echo chamber. So no, I do not think productive conversation is possible, both because of the values disconnect, and because /r/ssc seems to think /r/sneerclub is full of irrational people. You think we use 'racist' as some kind of superweapon to win fights while ignoring that you use 'SJW' to do the exact same thing. edit: but it's also not possible because a lot of us have already had productive conversations. Those conversations were productive of a desire to leave rationalism behind. You seem to think that for /r/sneer to understand /r/ssc, a productive conversation is necessary. No, /r/sneer went through that phase already.
I suspect my values are close enough to the opposite of yours on the matters in your parenthetical, that your interests are best served by my death or imprisonment. I think that’s the total war that’s fuming between the factions of the West, of which our conflict is just one small node. Best of luck, I guess. **Replying to your edits again:** I get that I’m serving as a kind of stand-in for SSC in general here, but for the record I don’t think you’re all irrational. I think you’re pursuing your values rationally, and I just don’t share them. It seems like you may be right that no productive conversation can be had between us though. Although I did have what I consider positive exchanges with others in this thread. **Replying to more edits:** >You think we use 'racist' as some kind of superweapon to win fights while ignoring that you use 'SJW' to do the exact same thing. It’s weird, because again this is describing someone who isn’t me. I almost never use the term SJW. However, I don’t think there’s any use defending myself as “not like the typical SSC rationalist,” because what I actually am is probably way worse from the perspective of your value system.
How would cutting back ICE, addressing police brutality, or addressing sexual harassment be best served by your death or imprisonment?
from a casual glance at his comment history he seems to be a fairly big fan of moldbug, mussolini, hh hoppe, and evola, with a bunch of benedict\-option fantasies, so he's not actually wrong on that one.
True. He wouldn't be able to vote if he ever went to prison. Or if he were dead I guess.
pretty surprised the cognitive dissonance involved in claiming you want a peaceful political negotiation when what you want is to genocide the underclasses and live in a brutally policed ethnostate hasn't given him a stroke.
rationalism is a hell of a drug
> National Socialist Germany wants peace because of its fundamental convictions. And it wants peace also owing to the realization of the simple primitive fact that no war would be likely essentially to alter the distress in Europe... The principal effect of every war is to destroy the flower of the nation... Germany needs peace and desires peace! -- Adolf Hitler, Speech to the Reichstag in Berlin May 1935
If he lives in a red state, it also doesn't matter much. Not sure why he's leaping to civil war as the only alternative. Fucking internet tough guys everywhere. What a drama king. I think a lot of people are longing for a civil war out of boredom, or wishful thinking that maybe finally their little lives will get to be part of a meaningful story.
It's like a poorly trained AI, like the AI whose solution to not lose tetris was to pause the game indefinitely. Yeah, democratic policies would pass if all the republicans died or were imprisoned, but I think there's a few other solutions missing here.
Exactly. I bet this guy thinks he's a hard-headed realist about the possibility of civil war, but he's really not. I think this guy _wants_ to think he's special enough that some lib would want to kill or imprison him.
One of the weirdest aspect of "Culture War" belief is the idea that internet arguments are a sign that the world is about to break into civil war between SJWs and neoreactionaries. It's a completely imaginary scenario, which seems to mainly serve the purpose of making the internet right feel important.
I think it also serves to place the abstract ahead of the concrete and material, and pretend we're fighting over something other than justification schema for resource inequality.
> I think a lot of people are longing for a civil war out of boredom, or wishful thinking that maybe finally their little lives will get to be part of a meaningful story. Is the dystopian media trend causing this or is this feeling causing the dystopian media trend
Both? They feed off of each other? I'm empathetic towards feelings of alienation and despair. Been there, still there, will be there. Turning to fascism is despicable, though.
Because I’m on the other side of those issues. I want more aggressive enforcement by ICE and harsher policing of the underclass (I’m not really on the other side of #MeToo I guess). As far as I can tell there’s no real persuasion left for either of us to do at that point. We just need to fight it out. At present those fights happen by ballot but no democracy is stable forever.
Persuasion? I thought you were just trying to understand sneerclub. Reddit isn't the real world. Having more leftist posters in ssc isn't going to do anything about politics. Especially since there's very little policy discussion. Not to mention many posters there (or here) aren't even from the US.
>I thought you were just trying to understand I was just coming by to have a chat since my comments seemed to have upset some here. I had a few productive exchanges on that. >Reddit isn't the real world. Having more leftist posters in ssc isn't going to do anything about politics. The social fabric of the real world is trillions of small interactions like this one. What we choose to do in isolation maybe doesn’t matter, but in aggregate it does. And we can have ripple effects on those around us or those who read these comments. I feel like a few of my interlocutors here have worked hard to interpret my statements as myopically as possible, but I realize I’m on your turf and you owe me no charity.
If you're charitable enough to realize you're in someone else's house, you could also try realizing that calling /r/sneerclub an echo chamber when it's mostly ex-rationalists is pretty insulting, distracting from your message, and one reason you feel like you're getting nowhere.
Yes, I’m very dumb and bad.
> I suspect my values are close enough to the opposite of yours on the matters in your parenthetical, that your interests are best served by my death or imprisonment. How do you get through the day without literally every single person you meet ruthlessly dunking on you Edit: let me rephrase, ~~How~~ do you get through the day without literally every single person you meet ruthlessly dunking on you
This person is incredibly self-centered. Like, "why are you treating me like the median SSC poster, why won't you treat me as an individual." I dunno, I have better things to do than go through some rando's post history? It's your job to represent yourself and explain who you are. It's stupid to assume the reader will know you're more fascist than the average rationalist. And the whole "we'll have to fight to the death." Even if there were a civil war breaking out, I doubt this person would be worth the bullet.
I have a feeling this person gets dunked on all the time, but doesn't realize it.
I dunno, it hasn't been a problem.
So are both my former step-brothers, what difference does it make?
I think it'd be extremely healthy for Rationalists to recognize ideological differences are real and no amount of Smartitude is going to make them go away any time soon. I don't particularly *like* that fact either, but I do think it's true. The conclusion is nonsense though. People have lived with ideological differences without waging "total war" for aeons. It's a weird neoreactionary notion that the only possibilities are ideological conformity or Hobbesian war. I reject that, and so do most people who in practice go peacefully about their day to day lives. (In fact people who post about politics on the internet *at all* are a minority and wildly unrepresentative of most people to begin with!)
Culture war as we know it is largely a symptom of late capitalist modernity. There have always been ideological differences, but the ones that we deal with today are way wider and much more personal than those of other times and places. I agree it won't explode into violence, though. If anything, the internet provides a release valve for cultural frustrations.
Wider and more personal? I think people have such ahistorical and myopic ideas about these things. They have forgotten that, for example, religious wars were once a common phenomenon.
The European Wars of religion were mostly imperial power struggles with religion used as a secondary proxy. The 30 Years War was, by and large, *not* fought over transubstantiation. The aggressors only cared about how the common people worshiped insofar as that worship was tantamount to pledging fealty to the state.
I think that's far too simple. There's a kind of vulgar materialism that effectively denies early modern/premodern people really cared about their religion. But they did. The whole struggle between the successive English dynasts (Henry VIII, Edward VI, Elizabeth, Mary, etc) and their religious policies makes no sense if it's seen as purely instrumental, without ideological content. The 30 years' war was certainly a struggle over territory and power, but an important component of that power was the power to determine the state religion under the principle of *eius regio, cuius religio*.
> Is there only total war at this point? Uh, yeah. The right's idea that you can advocate for genocide but still demand respect from people who hate mass slaughter is the most pampered bullshit, I'm amazed people even entertain the request for lopsided, left-castrating civility in the name of "the discourse".
I'm not making any demands of you. I'm fine with you folks doing your thing here and feeling however you want to feel. It was an honest question and you gave an honest answer. I can respect that you want to fight for the things you value, just as I do for mine.
> I can respect that you want to fight for the things you value, just as I do for mine. Pretending those things are morally equivalent is a denial of the material reality of politics, and as I just said, trying to be polite about monstrous positions doesn't make them better or more acceptable.
This is lame. Is this really all you've got? >W-well, remember that you're still evil! Thanks, will do.
Dude, if "being polite about genocide is still genocide" isn't a convincing argument against genocidal sentiment, I don't know how to fix your brainworm infestation.
This is a good comment, I like your attitude here. May we live in interesting times.

To play devil’s advocate, here is an alternative idea: leftists are leaving because this is a place where they have to rationally justify their ideas.

Like it or not, we live in a society where the Left hasn’t had to do that in a long time.

Being this detached from recent history should make anyone run away.

Yeah, seriously. Black-white wealth gap not budging, segregation on the rise, worker's rights being gutted, ICE committing ethnic cleansing, the West continuing to fuck over poorer countries...these are really basic, empirical facts. I doubt that anybody on /r/ssc is deliberately trying to be a dick, but it's really hard to not see them that way when they're being willfully ignorant.
What they actually mean is location-relative to Silicon Valley, tech sector, academia, etc. They don't see most of these problems because they don't have to deal with them, but what they do see is tech companies funneling bribes toward Democrats, increasing pressure from HR departments to be more woke, tumblr liberals yelling at them on the internet, the rise of commodified pop social justice culture, and micro-targeted advertising at minority populations. From this, they infer that the cultural Marxists have captured everything and are turning even our good traditional capitalist institutions into Goolags. This is how you get the bizarro world of the right wing where the script is always flipped -- Jews control the media; Obama is using healthcare reform as stealth reparations; Louis Farrakhan's under your bed with a shotgun; the lavender mafia is coming to turn your kids gay; feminists are taking all your shit through family court; taxes are wiping you out because too many bums are buying lobsters and t-bones with food stamps; Muslims are plotting stealth jihad in Dearborn, Michigan, etc. If they are young enough, they won't even be aware of how unoriginal their "forbidden knowledge" is -- Buckley obsessing over the Kampus Krazies 50 years ago, George Lincoln Rockwell trolling college campuses, Andrew Dice Clay's edgy anti-PC comedy routines, Birchers and Goldwater supporters raging against the cuckservative Rockefeller Republicans, Rush Limbaugh owning talk radio the same way youtube has been clogged up with alt-right videos, Phyllis Schlafly taking down the ERA, etc.
You're right, but I'm less forgiving of them because normal people with those kinds of blinders don't preach the good word of "epistemic humility."
No, they usually just tell you to LEARN HISTORY!
I mean let's be real here, did you really expect a bunch of wealthy libertarian techies to have good opinions on politics^*? * if you are not a wealthy libertarian techie that is
See, that's kinda why I think they should. Because I am a well-off programmer in Silicon Valley, I _used_ to be libertarian, and yet I bothered to educate myself, so why the everloving fuck can't they? It wasn't that hard. Especially not now, when mainstream news outlets are publishing stories like that one about how even well-off black households are likely to backslide into poverty. Then again, I'm a POC, and I grew up hearing stories about British imperialism, so I guess I don't fit the standard mold.
Funny thing is, I've converted lots of my former libertarian friends to various shades of left wingness. To the point where it's become virtually a cliché among us...
How do you do it?
To be honest, I didn't do it, they did. I think it's the slow burn effect that usually seems to be how actual conversions of worldview go: I argued with them a lot, then years of slow burn, eventually they went "you know what, you're right". But that's a process in their heads, I should really claim no credit for that.
>I mean let's be real here, did you really expect a bunch of wealthy libertarian techies to have good opinions on politics*? Yes. Yes, I really did, and I am again and again shocked that this is not true. Hacker culture used to be very close to the anarchist-flavored radical left, and scooter from 2015 used to be politically aligned with that.
Still is in many places. I live in Berlin and generally hacker and tech culture here is quite leftwing, if a bit on the 'fuck you dad' anarchist side.
I have a feeling that in America, at least, hacker culture was always more racist than you thought it was.
On the one hand, that's true, on the other hand, nobody likes talking about the Yippie influence on hackers. They were those fun leftists who ran a pig for president that one time.
Maybe? I'd prefer to await the judgment of a POC who was there. Plenty of well-meaning anti-authoritarians are still intolerably racist/sexist.
> Maybe? I'd prefer to await the judgment of a POC who was there. That's true, but there is an inherent good in shaming war criminals in a neener-neener way rather than being didactic and turning people off the message by making it ideological vegetables rather than subversive. Dressing down authority through mockery rather than lecture is the big reason I like the Yippies. I don't think we have to be less empathetic or dumb down to be more effective, but we do need to remind authoritarians that they're a bunch of ineffectual martinets more, and I think an egging goes farther than a lecture or a shooting in making that point since it's hard to take a tyrant seriously when they have egg-mess on their face. Asking people to not throw eggs at a genocidal person comes across as unreasonable stuffy dickcheese stuff, so egging is an effective non-violent way of just subverting those guys. Pranks and sabotage are stuff that need to be used more on the left side, they're fun and good. On the rhetorical level, that amounts to mockery being something we need to be more open to doing to enemies. Authoritarians crave control, so being wacky and chaotic and difficult for them to pin down is going to frustrate 'em a lot more. I also want to see a revival of the fart-in, when Saul Alinsky did it it was pretty effective, I'm surprised it hasn't been repeated. I don't think he was a Yippie, but threatening racists with farts is a Yippie move. Fun keeps people's spirits up, and in the struggle, morale is critical for avoiding burnout. --- As a counterpoint to all of that, a fair amount of the Yippies wound up selling out, so your instinct here on getting a second read is coming from the right place. > Plenty of well-meaning anti-authoritarians are still intolerably racist/sexist. Oh, that is definitely true. The disappointment women had about the '60's movements still being sexist and narrow in their vision about women's futures is a fair amount of where the second wave of feminism sprang out of/formalized itself in response to, for example. Then the third wave happened because half the movement teamed up with the Religious Right to try and go all puritanical on sex back in the '80's. I'm oversimplifying both of those historical trends a whole lot there (in part because I really only have a basic flowchart-type idea of how that stuff happened), but you have to be hella careful about how you think about people-as-groups, and even more careful about who you're willing to team up with to achieve things. There's also a tendency among a lot of us to excuse casual shit. Part of that is a response to disingenuous, insincere idpol being used as a justification for left-punching (see, pretty much all of Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign as an example of that phenomenon in action), but a significant amount of that is some kind of apathy or sometimes tacit approval of shitty, stale-ass prejudice.
Hacker culture also used to be very DIY by nature, and venture capital hadn't yet soaked the thing.
hacker culture =/= silicon valley techno-futurism tho https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/silicon-valleys-bonfire-of-the-vainglorious
> I doubt that anybody on /r/ssc is deliberately trying to be a dick, but it's really hard to not see them that way when they're being willfully ignorant. Anybody? I comment there, and I sometimes see value in it, but I also see value in explicitly making some/all distinctions. (Maybe I'm just a pedantic nerd, though.) In a group of thousands, there's a big difference between "there exists someone who is trying to be a dick" and "everyone is trying to be a dick." I do not doubt that there exist some people who comment on r/ssc and are trying to be a dick, and that accounts for some of the bad comments there. There also exist people who are oblivious, people who are contrarian, people who value free speech per se above all else (or at least think they do, because no one's speech has been too directly threatening to them), and people who have any number of reasons for tolerating bad comments or thoughtlessly making a few themselves. The results are not good, for any motive; but there are a lot of motives I'd support ascribing to some, not to all. (This some/all stuff might be relevant to stuff like #notallmen -- sure, not literally all men are guilty of [this particular bad thing], but nor is defending the honor of men as a class, the most helpful response. IMO making the some/all distinction more salient could help counteract defensiveness. Some members of a group do bad things with impunity, but this is not an attack on all members of the group. All, say, white males have privilege as such, but this is not an attack on the specific white males present.)

Lots to sneer at here:

I think a big part of this is that I was a leftist, and a very radical one. My thoughts today on the leftist rationale are informed by an analysis of my younger self.

Nice typical mind fallacy. May want to examine your biases a little more.

It’s telling that in the top post on SneerClub that PM links, the “life cycle” laid out amounts to “A bunch of people here disagreed with me forcefully, better refer to them dismissively as snowflakes in a safe space and refuse to engage”. The remainder of the post confuses thoughtfulness with length and additional snideness.

Some very charitable love for u/Epistaxis. I’m just going to assume this person has not seen Epistaxis’ old comments in the culture war thread.

If I were a moderator of this sub, I would ignore Sneerclub. Their raison d’être is to wield social power against this community and its norms, and they routinely engage in what would be called “brigading” behavior if performed by other groups.

I can’t figure out why the moderators here engage with them.

I’m going to give you a hint. You’re in a thread about left-leaning posters leaving and how that affects the sub. Many of those posters are now in sneerclub. ….. the world may never know.

And on the “brigading,” I pointed this out last time someone said this, but we have 1,083 subs and 39 active vs their 10,179 subs and 338 active users. We have 1/10th the people. We could brigade even if we wanted to.

they provide a market for people to post inflammatory crap here under an alt to make this place look bad.

Oh no, there is more than enough naturally-occuring material for us over there. Sometimes I can’t even decide which posts are most sneer-worthy.

The downvotes for leftists are actually a conspiracy theory. That whole thread is a trip. First off, removing your own upvote would put you at 0, not -1. Secondly, someone needs to explain the vote fuzzing reddit uses to them. Almost every comment shows as downvoted immediately to discourage bots. And the points given are never exactly accurate. Just refresh the page of any comment to see how much it changes. Thirdly, they seriously overestimate how much anyone cares about their sub. Like, this sub isn’t that active most of the time, and we have no shortage of material. There are so many very real racists that post all the time and are proud of it. To wit:

The moratorium was the single biggest disgrace this forum has seen, and it has done permanent damage to the credibility and reliability of the mods.

Oh yeah. That’s the good stuff.

I love it when people who aren't very liberal think of themselves as very liberal, and then use their not-very-liberalness to left-bash.
"I would have voted for Obama three times!"
Yeah. Judging by that top quoted guy's posting history, his idea of being a leftist is being an ancap, which is essentially, "I hate the state because it lets me get in the way of doing whatever I want, which includes owning tons of guns and shooting Mexicans."

why bother actually treating leftists as worthy of talking to when you can just extrapolate their positions from first principles

Never, ever, ever, talk to the enemy. They might say something convincing. If instead you simulate the enemy using the power of your very rational mind, you’ll generate an appropriately powerful argument which you can proceed to knock down.

in fairness to the people wildly speculating about their opposition’s arguments instead of reading any of them, they’re just doing what Scott would do but with a lower word count

Quality sneer
Put in Rationalist jargon, this place has a Schelling fence against any defenses of white supremacy. I am very supportive of that, and reading r/ssc makes it clear what the alternative is.
Did Friedrich Schelling build the fence found by Chesterton?
Thomas Schelling. Not as interesting, alas


I guess this is creepy if you don't think racism should be a dealbreaker.
> Even after twenty years on the internet Only twenty years on the internet? Good luck on your exams. > seeing polarization happen up close still creeps me the fuck out You get used to it.
uh, sneerclub started as a sluice for yudkowsky shit from /r/badphil that overlap ain't as clear-cut as you think
When did Scott Adams become so prominent here, anyway? I came here to sneer at silicon valley, mostly, and then I left reddit for a while and suddenly ssc is a major thing.
Me too (ish) There was a sudden influx of ex-rationalists from SSC who jumped ship, it seems to me It's good and it's bad On the one hand some of them take themselves *waaaaay* too seriously, and seem to think they're waging some kind of intellectual war against SSC or whatever (I could give a fuck, but I won't) On the other hand we already had narcsbro being super weird anyway, and at least now there's posts a lot more regularly Plus drama whenever the ex- and still-rationalists get into fights and write up those adorable (endless) posts and counter-posts for pages on end
I'm not that weird. Just don't take me too seriously and you'll be fine.
If you're under the impression that I take you remotely seriously I would like to thoroughly dispell it immediately. Nonetheless, Leninists are fucking weird.
Ah we'll seem less and less weird as capitalism decays :P
Yeah, that sounds right, really. Though, I've never taken the trouble to see what ssc is, really, so I've never really understood any of the drama. Eh, there's still Elon Musk stuff on here sometimes.
Standard nerd rationalism: "the ideal person is free from "bias", where "bias" refers to divergence from whatever the nerd likes". You know, it's the same rough story as Dawkins or whoever, but set out on a different, more Santa Ana-oriented (is that the place?), path. Anyway, there's a lot of overlap with the Musky Silicon Valley stuff with SSC. A ton of the SSC people are dwellers in that especially nether world, and apparently a lot of the people hanging out here now have pretty big connections to the world of Silicon Rationality.
How goes it, anyway? I feel like I haven't seen your name in a while (as you pointed out earlier, I guess)
Yeah, I'm not posting very much anymore. But I'm allright. My plans for the rest of my life fell through temporarily the other week, so I'm basically juggling housework, tying up loose ends and trying to get a job. But I'm not worried. My most immediate problem is the weather. It's so fucking hot.
Shit. I've been there, good luck. I'm visiting London and the weather is just fucking stupid. I went out last minute in blistering heat to give moral support to a friend doing a gig, sat on a rail replacement bus with no air-con for half an hour, finally got on a train with AC, stepped out of the station to walk to the venue, and immediately got soaked completely through my clothes by a 10 minute cloudburst.
That's crazy. Rain and sweat always sounds like it would be a good combination, but then it never is. It's been off here for months. I want to smoke on my balcony and lately it's always been either too hot in the full sun, or raining. Was the gig nice?
I'm not gonna lie and say it was a great gig, but it was good to see an old friend getting started again with something she's passionate about after dropping out of university, various jobs etc. It was more of a solid starting attempt for somebody who can totally build it into something bigger.
Ah, but that's nice. It's good seeing friends doing well. She's a musician, or was it comedy?
Guitar player, and now, apparently, singer! It is nice.
That's good! I've a friend who's been struggling with depression for as long as I've known him. It was great seeing him join bands and doing gigs.
Exactly, and I was especially so happy to have a drink afterwards and here about how, to be honest, a lot of the troubles she had were with that whole school-university-career pipeline where everybody tries to make you feel anxious about doing what you love. Cheesy shit, but it's good to see somebody at home with themselves instead of society's demands. I know I still struggle a huge amount with that myself.
Yeah, I hear you. I'm in a way quite happy with how my plans fell through, in that I'm now for the first time out of the trajectory that my life has been on since I was twelve, where every next step has somehow always felt as something I simply had to do, even if I did also want to do it.
k so also I was just checking your post history out of polite curiosity and what the fuck >Emanuele Severino apparently literally defends Parmenides, i.e. everything either is, or is not and nothing ever changes. He gets there through Heidegger, though I don't really understand him.
Ha, I know. A friend of mine studied in Italy for a while and recommended it to me, then I bought it in English and couldn't really get through it. But yeah, he's been apparently excommunicated from the Catholic church over it.
It's especially hard to overcome the impression of constant performative contradiction.
This is what I was getting. Maybe this is just my vulgar Humean/analytic particularism (although \*clears throat loudly* I've also got Heraclitus in my corner here), but how do you get "this finger moves" out of "Being is permanent and unchanging" (I'm sure he has an argument, and in fact I can already see what he might say, but it just feels silly)
As I recall it was partly an adaptation of Heidegger's theory of history, as there having been a constant decline from Parmenides onward and that therefore a rereading of Parmenides was necessary. But that *can't be right*, so I'm definitely missing something.
Alexander, you mean? Scott Adams might be worth sneering at too
These are different people? Well, shows what I know about Slate Star Codex.
Probably the fault of moderators leaning heavily to one side. For example, I was just a simple Marxist trying to give a Marxist viewpoint to liberals and conservatives, yet I was banned. As class war becomes more and more open they'll probably get the inclination to read Marx at some point.
You're kinda one-note, but I like that.
The idea of newer sneerclubbers being kinda unaware of my /r/ssc oeuvre is weird.