r/SneerClub archives
newest
bestest
longest
Best Criticisms of LW/SSC (https://www.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/comments/8vmgvc/best_criticisms_of_lwssc/)
posted on July 02, 2018 09:31 PM by u/DELETED
3

I like Scott and SSC. I think there is a slight anti-SJW bias, though. It seems like this place focuses on criticism of the ‘rationalist’ community. I find Scott to try very hard to be intellectually honest and as evenhanded as possible. I’d like to find opposing perspectives that take Scott down with that same sort of approach. Can you offer me up the best of Sneerclub to convert me to the Sneer side?

Thanks.

u/DELETED 38 points at 1530572946.000000

I think his treatment of leftist perspectives in the whole “conflict theorist” debacle should disabuse pretty much all of his readership of the idea that he’s in any way intellectually honest or evenhanded when dealing with anyone to the his left, but then again from the first page of your post history it seems like you want to ethnically cleanse the roma because you think they have an inherently degenerate culture or whatever, so it doesn’t seem to me like you’re going to be particularly welcome in this forum

permalink
u/elephantower 6 points at 1530604939.000000
Why does "conflict/mistake theory" get so much flak here? Conflict theory (the way Scott describes it) seems like a pretty good description of my political views. Is it just because people here have read more political theory, so y'all have better vocabulary to describe the general concept more precisely?
permalink
u/DELETED 22 points at 1530612381.000000
there were several glaring things wrong with the original post and like a million things wrong with the ssc commentariat's response to it, a summary of this sub's criticism is [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/comments/7szldi/in_which_scott_alexander_is_amazed_to_have/), but his original post presenting it should make it absolutely obvious that he has no intention of engaging with the left honestly- the introduction he writes explaining what lead to that piece is about how he explicitly 1) wonders what a leftist might say about it and decides to construct a hypothetical leftist in his mind to answer his questions instead of reading anything or asking anyone (or cracking open an introductory political science textbook), then 2) immediately conflates types of discursive approaches with types of people in order to dismiss his political opposition as fundamentally irrational and not as being motivated by different terminal values, then passes that off as Hard Mistake Theory so that he can continue to jack off about how rational he is being in spite of that obviously not being the case
permalink
u/Snugglerific 16 points at 1530628946.000000
It's the same way Yud takes legitimate concepts from cognitive science and decision theory and waters them down into thought-terminating cliches, although I don't think Alexander even realized that the term [already exists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_theories) in sociology. Then compound that with his penchant for making everything into some kind of epistemological version of a bad comedy routine -- "Conflict theorists be like this, mistake theorists be like that. High decouplers be like this, low decouplers be like that. White guys be like this, black guys be like that. Dog people be like this, cat people be like that."
permalink
u/DELETED -8 points at 1530574282.000000
I'm ancestrally Roma. This is irrelevant and pathetic. edit Are you guys really upvoting some comment stalker to the top of the thread instead of engaging on the topic?
permalink
u/DELETED 26 points at 1530574705.000000
look, anyone who defends salvini's calls for ethnic cleansing or the lega nord in general is a fascist in my book, and I don't particularly think there's much point to trying to have a civil debate with people who have such a great inferential distance to any political perspective that I would recognize as being sane or moral
permalink
u/DELETED -10 points at 1530577730.000000
It really comes off as having no real defensible position rather than being afraid to cross some massive "inferential gap". It seems like a lot of the sneerclub people are using the excuse that it's just a "waste of time" to present substantive positions. Lame excuse for the pretty apparent lack of substance/content that pervades the entire subreddit; it isn't just this thread. Nobody is doing anything but presenting half-assed sarcasm across the entire damn forum. I'm not even really here to debate. I just want to see the best of the other side so I can use it to beat up my SSC-loving friends with next level lefty contrarianism. So far I've been disappointed.
permalink
u/DELETED 32 points at 1530578803.000000
this is exactly what I'm talking about when I say that there's probably too great an inferential distance here for any conversation to be productive- you posted in a thread about salvini's explicit call to perpetrate a genocide saying that the hatred felt towards its intended targets is justified on the grounds that they are culturally degenerate (whatever that means and however you'd measure it) and your response to being called out for supporting a call for genocide is trying to argue about whether or not you're right about the cultural degeneracy part of that statement, apparently taking it as axiomatic that if the targets were indeed "culturally degenerate" that it would be a valid justification for genocide. to anybody who doesn't think that racism and ethnic cleansing can ever be justified, this is absolutely insane
permalink
u/DELETED -6 points at 1530579132.000000
Sorry mate, but I don't support genocide, and I don't think there is anything racially wrong with Roma. Seems like more of an intellectual honesty gap than an inferential distance gap.
permalink
u/DELETED 21 points at 1530579565.000000
I'm not really sure how else to read [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/8taiwx/italys_deputy_pm_called_for_mass_cleansing_street/e17akpf/) because unless you're totally blind to context that's really what that looks like
permalink
u/DELETED 1 points at 1530579961.000000
I guess you guys are trained in the art of uncharitably since this is an anti-SSC stronghold. If you've rifled through my comment history you've probably picked up that I'm an overwhelmingly left leaning person. Why stalk my comment history to find this to get the thread off track? I keep coming back to it, but it seems like there's a distinct lack of substance here.
permalink
u/zhezhijian 21 points at 1530581369.000000
you can leave you know
permalink
u/DELETED 18 points at 1530581018.000000
you're really not in any position to accuse anybody else of being uncharitable
permalink
u/DELETED 1 points at 1530581277.000000
I kind of am in a relative sense, even though I'm not being especially charitable.
permalink
u/DELETED 9 points at 1530583677.000000
eh, I'm not the one having to retroactively edit my posts to make myself look defensible while simultaneously complaining about internet etiquette it's probably a waste of time but if you're actually interested in reading something about the general critique of the culture of rationalism and their psychotic combination of logical positivism, whig teleology, and neoreaction you should start from reading about their predecessors as described in [the californian ideology](http://www.metamute.org/editorial/articles/californian-ideology), [the silicon ideology](https://archive.org/stream/the-silicon-ideology/the-silicon-ideology_djvu.txt), and [of flying cars and the declining rate of profit](https://thebaffler.com/salvos/of-flying-cars-and-the-declining-rate-of-profit).
permalink
u/noactuallyitspoptart 11 points at 1530588807.000000
Who are "you guys"?
permalink
u/queerbees 30 points at 1530571364.000000

reread untitled

But more importantly: if you need to be converted to the “Sneer side,” you’re not ready for it.

permalink
u/AlexCoventry 6 points at 1530584899.000000
> reread untitled [This led me to wonder what Walter Lewin is up to, these days.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gs3sNRsJAlA)
permalink
u/DELETED -1 points at 1530573195.000000
> if you need to be converted to the "Sneer side," you're not ready for it. This is the highest voted reply? I'm going to reserve judgment and maintain hope that I can be referred to something substantive. Even if you don't convert people, at least you would hope to... I don't know, make some progress on the discourse and shift opinions slightly? Like, now I'm sitting here wondering now if you guys are just total idiots with nothing interesting to say. "Is this essentially the subreddit version of RationalWiki?" I could hardly think of a group less worthy of sneering at anyone. If there was anything that can be said to convince me that SneerClub has absolutely nothing of value, this would be it. I'm going to keep waiting for links and further reading, but if this is a general summary of the intellectual content here I'm going to actually come away with a much stronger view of SSC & co. than I left with. edit You know what? Nevermind. This would never happen on /r/SSC. They might be weird and autistic, but their principle of charity would never allow this nonsense to be voted up. I've scoured the shit out of this forum for solid SSC critiques so I could show up my friends who like SSC, but I have found literally nothing intelligent so far. I guess I can still be proved wrong, but my respect for this place has been reduced to less than zero because you're competing with SSC on intellectual content and you've already committed suicide. At this point I now realize I've been *way* too hard on SSC and that they are in fact way better than I thought. If this is the opposing side then I should probably just drop to my knees and worship Scott.
permalink
u/DELETED 61 points at 1530574380.000000
if a jokey one line comment you get in the first hour of your post being open makes you respond like this, then maybe, just maybe, it's obvious you were never planning on engaging honestly with this sub and you're just doing the usual fake charitability-signalling that is omnipresent in the rationalist discursive millieu
permalink
u/DELETED -7 points at 1530578043.000000
I'm not here to engage with the sub. I'm here to get ammunition against people who are too enamored with SSC. The disappointment is real. You guys should really consider what kind of empty-headed bullshit you upvote.
permalink
u/zhezhijian 35 points at 1530579734.000000
no
permalink
u/DegenerateRegime 19 points at 1530603764.000000
> You know what? Nevermind. This would never happen on /r/SSC. They might be weird and autistic, but their principle of charity would never allow this nonsense to be voted up. # > I'm here to get ammunition against people who are too enamored with SSC. Well, the good news is it won't be hard for you to find a target...
permalink
u/antonivs 4 points at 1530645097.000000
I take it your username is intended to be ironic.
permalink
u/completely-ineffable 36 points at 1530575531.000000
> Even if you don't convert people, at least you would hope to... I don't know, make some progress on the discourse and shift opinions slightly? I can't speak for our illustrious thoughtleader, but my experience is that people rarely make meaningful shifts in their worldviews from reading takedowns of things they currently like. Especially so for takedowns posted pseudonymously online. And while I don't know anything about you, my experience with people coming to online spaces and saying "debate me!" is that it never turns out well. So the priors are against you. Point being, I can completely understand why /u/queerbees would be skeptical that the effort/time required to have a low chance at "mak[ing] some progress on the discourse" isn't worth it. ---- But let's set that aside. Let me second the suggestion to reread [Untitled](https://web.archive.org/web/20150102053038/slatestarcodex.com/2015/01/01/untitled/). Read it and think about the invective Alexander has for feminists.\* Then compare it to how he writes about racists and the right. Read it and think about how he describes the things feminists believe. Then compare that to what feminists have to say about their own beliefs. (Seriously: compare Alexander's explanation of the concept of patriarchy to [how Allan Johnson puts it](http://www.iupui.edu/~womrel/Rel%20101_Religion&Culture/Johnson_Patriarchy.pdf). Night and day here.) Read it and consider how it is approximately 14000 words, and what this investment of time and effort reflects about Alexander's values. ---- [\*] You might be tempted to object: But those feminists were really mean to Aaronson, who had just shared his feelings about his struggles being a kid and growing up. But alas, not so fast. First: the feminists ranged from [sympathetic](https://www.newstatesman.com/laurie-penny/on-nerd-entitlement-rebel-alliance-empire) to [catty](https://www.rawstory.com/2014/12/mit-professor-explains-the-real-oppression-is-having-to-learn-to-talk-to-women/), but not especially mean. Second: Aaronson's thing was in response to a woman who herself had opened up about herself (and other women) facing sexual harassment, and he then proceeded to talk over her.
permalink
u/DELETED 8 points at 1530577642.000000
I think "Untitled" is one of the worst things Scott has written and clearly shows his issues with women. It's one of the things that unsettled me about SSC.
permalink
u/DELETED 30 points at 1530575834.000000
[deleted]
permalink
u/DELETED 1 points at 1530578239.000000
I didn't come here to argue. I came here to review what this place was all about so I could be more well rounded and have a leg up on people who read SSC. I wouldn't have even made this thread if you had a decent sidebar. So far, I'm of the general opinion that this place doesn't have the intellectual horsepower to be sneering at SSC. People shouldn't be upvoting posts without substance like "lol if u need to be converted u don't deserve to kno!!!111" This shit would never fly in any serious subreddit. Really, get a reality check. Nobody cares what you have to say if you can't fit in something smart with your condescension - but really it would be nice if you could just say the smart things without the attitude.
permalink
u/yemwez 15 points at 1530578999.000000
> I'm of the general opinion that this place doesn't have the intellectual horsepower to be sneering at SSC. says the person without the intellectual horsepower to look at [the top posts of the subreddit](https://old.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/top/).
permalink
u/DELETED 1 points at 1530579378.000000
Which links do you feel are the strongest criticisms? And can people here supply links without being unrepentant buttholes? Like, holy crap, do you actively want to chase people away? The contrast in the civility levels in SneerClub and SSC is... amazing.
permalink
u/completely-ineffable 21 points at 1530580136.000000
> do you actively want to chase people away? Yes, for certain kinds of people. That's how curating a space works. It won't be for everyone.
permalink
u/yemwez 19 points at 1530579758.000000
1) your reply to queerbees was excessively pissy. 2) we outright reject the civility norms of ssc 3) https://old.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/comments/7gnzdb/is_it_the_people_or_the_philosophy/ https://old.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/comments/818b04/less_of_a_sneer_and_more_of_a_cathartic_rant/ https://old.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/comments/8lpqfd/lets_talk_about_how_we_became_people_of_the_sneer/ and for some fun https://old.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/comments/8cwwla/because_rslatestarcodex_has_banned_hbd_lets_play/
permalink
u/DELETED 2 points at 1530579839.000000
Thank you for supplying links and contributing something of substance. You guys should consider norms which endorse more substance and less sarcasm though, even if you're not completely sold on SSC civility norms (which can be a little over the top). Being bizarro-SSC where it's 100% incivility and 0% substance is not really a good look. edit Actually enjoying some of these links.
permalink
u/zhezhijian 27 points at 1530581054.000000
have you tried considering the perspective that /r/sneer is not interested in maintaining a civil public facade, and also that the value of civility is [subjective and political](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/29/opinion/civility-protest-civil-rights.html)? if you take an honest look at history and how positive social change happens, you'll find that civility rarely played a role. civility is massively overrated.
permalink
u/DELETED 3 points at 1530581224.000000
Eh, I think SSC's civility is over the top and don't necessarily hold sneer to the same standards. That said, at a certain points people are just hiding behind snark because they *can't* contribute substance. There should be a middle ground.
permalink
u/zhezhijian 13 points at 1530581899.000000
this is the last time i'm going to try to explain this. when there exists a substantial values gap, no arguments of substance can be exchanged. if i like stomping on kittens, like i really, really enjoy that sweet skull-cracking--that's just a basic preference that cannot be intellectually argued with. you could tell me i'm being immoral and cruel to animals, and if i don't care, all you're going to get back is a 'so what? i don't care' a la melania trump's jacket. it is incredibly not-intellectual of you to not recognize this.
permalink
u/DELETED -2 points at 1530582272.000000
I'm a left leaning person who thinks SSC has an anti-SJW bias. I'm pretty sure you can engage me on SSC's anti-SJW bias. Just seems like you're the dumbest person in this thread and need an excuse to act out. You're absolutely papering the comment section and can't say a single interesting thing.
permalink
u/zhezhijian 16 points at 1530590991.000000
You're the asshole who came into a subreddit called /r/sneerclub and repeatedly suggested that it change its norms, so fuck off. I supplied a link for you too, dumbass, for which you even thanked me, so fuck you for saying that /r/ssc has more charity than this place does. You've been nothing but rude to the people who tried to say something more substantial, and you've been a complete dick about engaging the sincere responses you do get. I was trying to explain why /u/queerbees made that comment about you needing to be converted, since you flipped out at their response. Why would anyone want to have a real conversation with you?
permalink
u/noactuallyitspoptart 12 points at 1530589200.000000
>That said, at a certain points people are just hiding behind snark because they can't contribute substance. /r/badpsychology
permalink
u/noactuallyitspoptart 18 points at 1530589172.000000
> You guys should consider norms which endorse more substance and less sarcasm though Why?
permalink
u/abiteoffry 4 points at 1530976652.000000
The name of the sub is "SneerClub" not "DebateClub."
permalink
u/DELETED 2 points at 1530990975.000000
You guys are pretty well positioned to be a counterweight to SSC but I see the opportunity squandered.
permalink
u/zhezhijian 9 points at 1530580782.000000
ok fine, here's a great essay about the pitfalls of the Effective Altruism mindset: https://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n18/amia-srinivasan/stop-the-robot-apocalypse
permalink
u/DELETED 6 points at 1530581078.000000
Thank you for this. Although, I've got to be honest, effective altruism is at the bottom of my concerns with SSC. I'm more concerned about the anti-SJW bias. I'll still read it.
permalink
u/elephantower 16 points at 1530581560.000000
is this some weird troll or are you really this pretentious?
permalink
u/DELETED 6 points at 1530582611.000000
This is a weird place to be called pretentious.
permalink
u/elephantower 3 points at 1530605426.000000
Maybe that was too harsh, sorry. I just think the way you're acting like a self-appointed judge of everyone's arguments is a bit annoying...and what can I say I'm actually really pro-LW/EA so maybe I'm just biased against anyone trying to find criticisms :P
permalink
u/zhezhijian 22 points at 1530580173.000000
so here's a little nugget for your intellectual development. for tons of people on this sub, scooter showing that he had a problem with misogyny was enough to cause them to leave the community. therefore, what it boils down to is a difference in values. for a more clear-cut example, consider the family separations currently ongoing at the Mexico-American border. some people think ripping babies away from their mothers is ok! some people really don't! is resolving this difference a matter of bringing to bear superior intellectual horsepower? no, because values are axiomatic. they cannot be argued with. two perfectly logical people can come to wildly different conclusions if they are starting with different values. queerbees was evidently correct to suspect that your values are different enough from /r/sneerclub's that dialogue would be useless. either you're leftist enough to find scooter horrifying, or you're not. sounds like you're not. hence their comment about 'converting.' what this means is sometimes people will run into truly irreconcilable differences. civil dialogue is only possible when there's enough of a values overlap. when there isn't, all that's left is...sneering.
permalink
u/DELETED -2 points at 1530580934.000000
This is all irrelevant. I just want to find the best criticisms of SSC. Full stop. Some people have already succeeded in supplying some pretty interesting links. Other people *cough* can't stop with the snark long enough to say something interesting.
permalink
u/zhezhijian 19 points at 1530581340.000000
> This is all irrelevant. rude. especially after all the pissing and moaning you did about getting snarky responses. >I just want to find the best criticisms of SSC what you apparently do not understand, is that if you're trying to convince right-leaning people that SSC suck, /r/sneerclub is not the place to come, because people here are leftist, and are going to object because Scooter offends leftist values. for /r/sneerclub, scott being racist and misogynist is the best criticism. for you, apparently it's not. that is why you should leave this sub and go somewhere else.
permalink
u/DELETED 1 points at 1530581765.000000
>scott being racist and misogynist is the best criticism. Yeah, I agree. That said, I can't muster more than very vague criticisms. I can tell something is wrong, but I can't nail it down. I was hoping to find some more in-depth in-the-weeds write up that does a better job than me. For all the sneering here, you'd think that people have him nailed to the fuckin' wall. Instead I'm getting the impression that most people here are doing about as well as me or worse at nailing it down.
permalink
u/PolyamorousNephandus 4 points at 1530686166.000000
You do not define your arbitrary standards for "best" and you keep moving the damn goalposts. Mods, can we get this thread locked, please?
permalink
u/queerbees 25 points at 1530573434.000000
> deep > intellectual > revulsion... You don't get to become "thoughtleader among the sneerers" by pussyfooting around the truth. Did you reread untitled?
permalink
u/DELETED -1 points at 1530577934.000000
I've read it and see clear flaws in Scott's apprehension of feminists and SJWs. Is that all you have? There's a lot more content on SSC than this one article though. Does the content contained in Untitled form the bulk of SneerClub's criticism?
permalink
u/queerbees 18 points at 1530580931.000000
> I've read it and see clear flaws in Scott's apprehension of feminists and SJWs. Is *this* all *you* have? Did you **re**read untitled?
permalink
u/DELETED 1 points at 1530581343.000000
I came here to find criticisms I haven't already figured out on my own. I already see the very obvious issues with Untitled. I'm not going to keep re-reading it; I doubt I'll get a lot more on my own.
permalink
u/queerbees 12 points at 1530581462.000000
What about reactionary faq?
permalink
u/DELETED 1 points at 1530581553.000000
What about it? Are you talking about the anti-NRx FAQ? Is there a write-up about it? Because, no, I didn't figure out all the flaws in it on my own if that's what you're asking. Happy to read to read about them though.
permalink
u/queerbees 16 points at 1530582168.000000
I don't want you to find the "flaws" --- I want you to describe it as a Gesamtfurzwerk (as a "total work of fart"). What does the reactionary faq *speak* to?
permalink
u/DELETED 0 points at 1530582766.000000
To expect me to do that without having strong arguments against it says a lot about the thought process in these parts. I think I'm starting to understand what SC is all about. Funny story: I actually thought you guys knew things that I didn't and were so educated in the liberal arts that you'd drop pound after pound of knowledge on me. Wow was I mistaken. One of my lingering doubts about SSC was due to this place. It seemed like you guys were so smug because you knew something and it kept me cautious. But it really seems like I overrated this place. Glad I made the thread. I maintain my general unease with SSC, but without a powerful intellectual opponent lurking in the wings, my unease has been strongly lessened.
permalink
u/completely-ineffable 24 points at 1530583610.000000
> but without a powerful intellectual opponent lurking in the wings, my unease has been strongly lessened. I'm really digging this transparent attempt to guilt us into answering your question in the way you want.
permalink
u/volatilevolaroof 1 points at 1672010148.000000
Recently I dove into this whole rationalist, sneerclub, SCC (now themotte?), lesswrong, effectivealtruism etc. rabbithole (Because I read HPMOR and thought it was interesting) and I find it all pretty interesting, probably mostly aligning with this corner. It feels like examining internet ruins, although most of the communities are still somewhat active. Why are you all so incredibly pretentious, smug and unlikeable, when in any way engaging with each other? There's nothing but condescension in any place? And in this place specifically, you will poke fun at people by quoting them ironically, often their most smug ideas, and yet the some of the shit on here also seems incredibly smug. It feels like you're all mocking these people instead of engaging with them, in the same way those you mock might. I don't know what to call this social sphere. I dislike all of this and I wish that I'd never read about any of this. Happy New Years.
permalink
u/queerbees 15 points at 1530583793.000000
>> *Gesamtfurzwerk* >> "total >> work >> of >> fart" I don't think you realize how valuable this exchange has been.
permalink
u/AlexCoventry 1 points at 1530673113.000000
What's contemptible about SSC's FAQ? It seems like a pretty thorough demolition.
permalink
u/queerbees 20 points at 1530575033.000000
Wow. It looks like you've got a lot weighing on you mind---too much weighing for you to revisit untitled and your excessive praise of scott's charity. > This would never happen on /r/SSC. That's *amore*.
permalink
u/Snugglerific 22 points at 1530576128.000000
>That's Damore FTFY
permalink
u/queerbees 7 points at 1530577525.000000
🍈
permalink
u/completely-ineffable 19 points at 1530575728.000000
> edit > You know what? Nevermind. This would never happen on /r/SSC. They might be weird and autistic, but their principle of charity would never allow this nonsense to be voted up. I've scoured the shit out of this forum for solid SSC critiques so I could show up my friends who like SSC, but I have found literally nothing intelligent so far. I guess I can still be proved wrong, but my respect for this place has been reduced to less than zero because you're competing with SSC on intellectual content and you've already committed suicide. At this point I now realize I've been way too hard on SSC and that they are in fact way better than I thought. If this is the opposing side then I should probably just drop to my knees and worship Scott. I just saw this, which you apparently added in while I was in the process of hunting down links. My other comment was written from a place of sincerity, and I still think you should read it and consider the things I said and linked. But I want to say this to your sudden meltdown: lol.
permalink
u/DELETED 4 points at 1530578552.000000
You're one of two people so far that has said something of any value. That said, you didn't say anything I didn't already know. Yeah, Scott has an anti-SJW bias and nowhere is it more evident than "Untitled." If that's the best you guys have, so be it - it's also the best I have. I don't consider myself "melting down" rather than losing all respect for this place based on what is upvoted. I had higher expectations and they were dashed in a brutal way. That post was truly dumb and had *numerous* upvotes. It has come close to sealing my opinion of the opposition - it's weak. Look at the quality and civility of discourse on SSC and then look at this thread. It would never happen there. The signal is already so strong. It comes off like SneerClub hides behind snark because it doesn't have substance. As I said, I haven't *totally* made my judgement. Someone could come out swinging real hard and enlighten me, but the casket has almost closed.
permalink
u/completely-ineffable 15 points at 1530580217.000000
> retarded We don't truck with that kind of language here, mister. Comment removed.
permalink
u/DELETED 4 points at 1530581122.000000
You know I could just edit it if that's the case. It's already edited for that matter.
permalink
u/completely-ineffable 11 points at 1530582911.000000
Comment unremoved.
permalink
u/Shitgenstein 33 points at 1530576376.000000
It's one thing coming to a place with something to prove, but to come to a place demanding proof! Is this how you approach everything else, demanding a performance which you can sit back and determine if you're impressed enough for it to gain your approval? > Even if you don't convert people, at least you would hope to... I don't know, make some progress on the discourse and shift opinions slightly? Like, now I'm sitting here wondering now if you guys are just total idiots with nothing interesting to say. >If there was anything that can be said to convince me that SneerClub has absolutely nothing of value, this would be it. I'm going to keep waiting for links and further reading, but if this is a general summary of the intellectual content here I'm going to actually come away with a much stronger view of SSC & co. than I left with. What a sense of entitlement you have. Nobody owes you convincing. Nobody owes you links or further reading. > >edit > >You know what? Nevermind. This would never happen on /r/SSC. They might be weird and autistic, but their principle of charity would never allow this nonsense to be voted up. I've scoured the shit out of this forum for solid SSC critiques so I could show up my friends who like SSC, but I have found literally nothing intelligent so far. I guess I can still be proved wrong, but my respect for this place has been reduced to less than zero because you're competing with SSC on intellectual content and you've already committed suicide. At this point I now realize I've been *way* too hard on SSC and that they are in fact way better than I thought. If this is the opposing side then I should probably just drop to my knees and worship Scott. Oh, I see. This was a concern trolling. I bet you're deeply disappointed that you can't find any criticism up to your standards. Like people have the time, energy, and desire to supply you with a thorough critique the instant you demand, or else "you've already committed suicide." Fuck off.
permalink
u/DELETED -7 points at 1530578154.000000
In the future, less of this and more substance if you can muster it. I give you no points for your analysis.
permalink
u/Shitgenstein 29 points at 1530579222.000000
Well, you see, I don't care. I'm fine with you dropping to your knees and worshiping Scott (still damn weird that people use first names, like "Sam" for Sam Harris). I don't want your points. I have no investment in this exchange. I'm fairly certain what you really came for was self-righteous confirmation, not some best criticism. /u/CallsOutBullSh, I call your bullshit.
permalink
u/SailOfIgnorance 6 points at 1530587303.000000
>still damn weird that people use first names, like "Sam" for Sam Harris This is fairly common in America (not sure where you're from?) outside of formal writing. Maybe it's weird, but from my personal non-Rationalist background, it's okayish. I've heard you and /u/noactuallyitspoptart say this, and I'm curious why you find it odd.
permalink
u/noactuallyitspoptart 10 points at 1530588624.000000
I'm from the UK, and I find it creepy when people do it here too. My background is non-rationalist too, as I hope should be obvious, but you never know. My friends in The States don't generally talk about people we don't know personally know like that either, maybe it's an academic thing, but then I know a fair few academics in The States too. The reason I personally find it odd, is the apparent identification with somebody you've never met or spoken with even online. If I call somebody "Sam" or "Scott" it's generally because I have a relationship with them, although there are a small group of people who I would do that with because of a second-hand grouping, based on an at least friend-of-a-friend first-person thing. For example I wouldn't mind referring to [professional philosopher I know through a close friend and have chatted to informally online] by their first name, but that's about it. There's different contexts too: if I were writing an article for an online magazine (Vox immediately springs to mind for whatever reason, though if I ever try to get them to publish an article of mine please execute me), I might be tempted, if adopting an informal style, to do that, but really only if I were writing against them, rather than in favour. If I were doing that, it'd be a rhetorical technique to sound chummy with somebody in order to either build a sort of "no harm, no foul" kind of feeling, or else to condescend and make them look small by talking as if they were my mother - which is also the only time I used first name's on twitter, by the way, unless I've gotten friendly with somebody. Otherwise it seems to me that it just makes you look, and feel, like you're closer to the person than you really are, and deepens your association with them. The irony is /r/samharris has so often accused me of tribalism for being an arsehole about Sam Harris - a well-informed, educational, and well-sourced arsehole, but an arsehole nontheless - for making this sort of complaint. The way I see it I'm not really affiliated with any particular political group except sneerers and Labour, and both are pretty loose associations for me. I like to keep my distance, and I only publicly agree with people when I actually agree, rather than devoting my personal interests to any one particular person: I don't have much in the way of people that I admire beyond a few things. That's not a self-righteous "I'm not like everybody else" rant, it's just how I happen to feel. I'll go "omigod" over somebody who writes a paper I like, especially if they write more than one, but it's not quite the same thing as defending a podcaster I listen to on the way to work from any and every attack on his character. Hence why I'd rather keep my distance and not talk as if I'm familiar with them just because I've consumed their media.
permalink
u/zhezhijian 8 points at 1530589506.000000
the breezy familiarity of the first name basis for people you've never met is because in america we abolished all those old-world hierarchies and can address each other as free men and women do
permalink
u/noactuallyitspoptart 4 points at 1530609107.000000
spicy!
permalink
u/SailOfIgnorance 7 points at 1530591463.000000
>The reason I personally find it odd, is the apparent identification with somebody you've never met or spoken with even online. If I call somebody "Sam" or "Scott" it's generally because I have a relationship with them, although there are a small group of people who I would do that with because of a second-hand grouping, based on an at least friend-of-a-friend first-person thing. For example I wouldn't mind referring to [professional philosopher I know through a close friend and have chatted to informally online] by their first name, but that's about it. My running theory is that people trick themselves into familiarity with ("intellectual") celebrities after a certain time. Talk about Harris enough and he becomes Sam. That's probably a function of his personal demeanor as well (will anyone call him Dr. Harris? *gag*). To contrast, Peterson weilds his professorship like a bludgeon, so I'll probably never seriously call him Jordan. Like you, unless I know them personally, I tend to call non-celebrity academics by their last names consistently. Not sure about Scotty boy, since I don't know his credentials off hand, so I treat him like a blogger. Americans tend to switch to first names as fast as possible after meeting, so maybe it's less weird to me. (sounds like you do this too though?)
permalink
u/Snugglerific 5 points at 1530626561.000000
It's not an American thing, it's a parasocial relationship thing. I think podcasts/radio might encourage this more because co-hosts are going to call each other by their first names, so you hear it more often.
permalink
u/noactuallyitspoptart 3 points at 1530626624.000000
Yeah, I thought the people putting it down to America were stretching an unexamined stereotype more than anything else
permalink
u/sneakpeekbot 1 points at 1530588636.000000
Here's a sneak peek of /r/samharris using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/samharris/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [The SPLC has released this apology to Maajid Nawaz and paid out over 3 million.](https://i.redd.it/wr3av8exwr411.jpg) | [300 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/8s04mn/the_splc_has_released_this_apology_to_maajid/) \#2: [#123 — Identity & Honesty](http://wakingup.libsyn.com/123-identity-and-reality) | [4145 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/8axbzo/123_identity_honesty/) \#3: [Advantages of Interstellar Travel](https://i.redd.it/2vdcvnc7fnk01.png) | [25 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/833ae4/advantages_of_interstellar_travel/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| [^^Contact ^^me](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| [^^Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| [^^Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/7o7jnj/blacklist/)
permalink
u/noactuallyitspoptart 2 points at 1530588712.000000
Case in point
permalink
u/Shitgenstein 7 points at 1530588971.000000
Because I was taught to reference authors by their surname if one isn't on a first-name basis with them, in formal writing or otherwise. By given name is overfamiliar. I'm an American who attended a public high school. EDIT: I also just prefer surnames to given names. Given names are almost always common and boring.
permalink
u/DELETED 3 points at 1530588796.000000
[deleted]
permalink
u/SailOfIgnorance 5 points at 1530590702.000000
>Unironically, this is pretty weird to me too although I slip into it. In thinking about these responses, I find it hard to come up with 'rules' about when I feel comfortable dropping into first names. My instinct is to write "Harris" when I'm drafting a response on /r/samharris , but after some time I'll shorten it to "Sam". I can't tell if I'm lazy or tricking myself into familiarity.
permalink
u/DELETED 4 points at 1530628145.000000
[deleted]
permalink
u/SailOfIgnorance 2 points at 1530628765.000000
> It is possible that this is just how Harris is known on the sub and you've picked up that habit This actually sounds much more reasonable, thanks. There still might be something to be said about how his sub got into the habit, but it only takes a few to start the snowball.
permalink
u/Snugglerific 4 points at 1530626610.000000
His name's Stiller, duh.
permalink
u/FootballTA 4 points at 1530631742.000000
With SA, I think it's because people would accuse you of doxxing him if you called him Dr. *******
permalink
u/DELETED 2 points at 1530579587.000000
Nope. I have a bunch of right leaning friends who love SSC and I think they're too enamored. I wanted to blindside them with criticisms they've never heard. I had found one good article here before - something about the Cult of Bayes - and hoped to find others. Instead I found that I completely overrated you guys. PS for someone who "doesn't care" has "no investment" and "doesn't want your points" you sure write a lot. Seems to be the bog-standard excuse for 100% snark and 0% substance in these parts. You're just so smart that you don't need to make sense!
permalink
u/Shitgenstein 24 points at 1530580718.000000
If you think my replies above is "a lot" by my usual replies, you're mistaken. It's fun to tell you to fuck off. I do care about that. But, yes, I come to /r/sneerclub entirely for the snark, it's in the damn name. And yes, I have no interest investing the time and energy for a substantial critique of internet rationalism. I'm not even sure the topic deserves a critique more substantial than noting how utterly pretentious it is in origin and how utterly abhorrent it is in effect. It's the "I'm really smart" of comp sci degrees who know a little about decision theory and read too many blogs of equally pretentious idiots, and *then* it's rationalization of racism and misogyny. There's no "evenhanded" treatment except that anybody can post anything on the internet and find an audience for it, especially if there's a pretense for the audience to feel superior for being a part of some armchair genius club. And that peculiar past-time of liberals wanting to feel edgy and superior to other liberals, I guess. And this is all separate from Scott Alexander, who I have little exposure to and don't care to gain. My sneer is at "rationalism" in general.
permalink
u/DELETED -2 points at 1530581038.000000
I don't get why you keep posting. You're just taking up space when there are at least a few people saying interesting things.
permalink
u/Shitgenstein 21 points at 1530581412.000000
Because > It's fun to tell you to fuck off. I do care about that. Oh, in case that wasn't clear, fuck off. And "taking up space"? That doesn't make sense. And I can ask you the same if my replies aren't interesting to you but I know the answer.
permalink
u/DELETED 2 points at 1530581597.000000
This is pretty sad if this is how you have fun.
permalink
u/Shitgenstein 16 points at 1530582085.000000
One of the ways, sure. Certainly "/u/CallsOutBullSh" can see the fun in calling out bullshit. "Some twat is on the internet and I need to make him aware of the fact!" Sheer rhetorical joy. You know you enjoyed replying with that "pretty sad if" rejoinder. Don't lie. There's another thing I dislike about "rationalism," denying one's passion. Reals over feels is the ultimate feel.
permalink
u/noactuallyitspoptart 14 points at 1530588981.000000
> I wanted to blindside them with criticisms they've never heard. Then consider behaving like less of an arsehole, you pompous twat
permalink
u/Snugglerific 21 points at 1530577181.000000

Hmm, I can’t think of a big centralized critique a la Alexander’s anti-NRx FAQ, but there is Jaron Lanier’s Half a Manifesto as a general critique of transhumanism/tech culture. In terms of Big Yud himself, there’s Massimo Pigliucci’s run-ins with him:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onvAl4SQ5-Q

http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2010/09/eliezer-yudkowsky-on-bayes-and-science.html

http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2013/01/lesswrong-on-morality-and-logic.html

https://philpapers.org/rec/PIGMUA

permalink
u/DELETED 2 points at 1530577699.000000
Thank you for taking the time to provide materials and answer the question. I sincerely appreciate your time spent engaging on the topic.
permalink
u/WaifuManchu 16 points at 1530583294.000000

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Concern_troll

permalink
u/DELETED 0 points at 1530600778.000000
I think SSC has an anti-SJW bias and came for more confirmation, not to argue or troll. You guys really are one of the worst communities ever. Seems like inferential gaps more than a few milimeters are too much for this place to handle. I’ve thanked all the people who provided links and read the top posts. You guys are way weaker than I first thought though, and the level of incivility paints this place as seriously immature.
permalink
u/noactuallyitspoptart 25 points at 1530613593.000000
> You guys really are one of the worst communities ever. It's really much more about you being an evident fucking arse, as I pointed out earlier, you gigantic hole.
permalink
u/PolyamorousNephandus 16 points at 1530640408.000000

I mean, Sneerclub responded to my and Kathy’s testimonials with compassion and humanity.

Scooter and co. responded with “Kathy was crazy” and “We don’t have a larger instance of sexual assault than humanity at large so why fix it” and completely ignoring my existence to attack the one of us who was dead (Kathy Forth) so, you know, they can eat me.

permalink
u/zhezhijian 10 points at 1530673683.000000
lol don't you get it that's not an _intellectual_ argument lolllll
permalink
u/PolyamorousNephandus 9 points at 1530685726.000000
of course, my mistake, how could i be so stupid brb castigating myself with a copy of HPMOR cut into strips and bound into a flogger or some shit
permalink
u/dgerard 6 points at 1530689196.000000
> brb castigating myself with a copy of HPMOR cut into strips and bound into a flogger or some shit wondering how to market these to them without giving the game away
permalink
u/PolyamorousNephandus 6 points at 1530689803.000000
two words: "math pets"
permalink
u/giziti 11 points at 1530588939.000000

You may find this discussion of Bayesian rational agents and how they are completely and stupidly misinterpreted by that crowd here: http://bactra.org/notebooks/612.html

EDIT: you may also find this paper (from somebody I once played beer pong with) tangentially related https://academic.oup.com/analysis/article-abstract/78/2/207/4061068

permalink
u/Fellero 6 points at 1530929173.000000

Agreed, Scott is a very friendly and polite nazi.

permalink