r/SneerClub archives
newest
bestest
longest
'There's never been a successful leftist revolution.' 'What about these ones?' 'I don't know anything about those ones.' (https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/9a7zjq/has_there_ever_been_a_successful_radical/e4ti1m2/)
52

Since social democracy is basically just democratic socialism and democratic socialism is basically Marxism and Marxism is basically Marxist-Leninism, etc. (N.B. don’t be crying wolves about Nazis and racists), I’m sure we can say that universal healthcare in every developed nation beside the USA is basically constant civil war.

I’m starting to think the key element of being a rationalist is “not knowing a single thing about history and never reading a single reputable history book”. The only question is if this is a sufficient or just a necessary factor.

Reading history books is for plebs. You should be able to reconstruct history entirely through rational thought.
Many many millions of years ago a race of hyperintelligent pandimensional beings (whose physical manifestation in their own pandimensional universe is not dissimilar to our own) got so fed up with the constant bickering about the meaning of life which used to interrupt their favorite pastime of Brockian Ultra Cricket (a curious game which involved suddenly hitting people for no readily apparent reason and then running away) that they decided to sit down and solve their problems once and for all. And to this end they built themselves a stupendous super computer which was so amazingly intelligent that even before its data banks had been connected up it had started from *I think therefore I am* and got as far as deducing the existence of rice pudding and income tax before anyone managed to turn it off. It was the size of a small city. Its main console was installed in a specially designed executive office, mounted on an enormous executive desk of finest ultramahogany topped with rich ultrared leather. The dark carpeting was discreetly sumptuous, exotic pot plants and tastefully engraved prints of the principal computer programmers and their families were deployed liberally about the room, and stately windows looked out upon a tree-lined public square. On the day of the Great On-Turning two soberly dressed programmers with briefcases arrived and were shown discreetly into the office. They were aware that this day they would represent their entire race in its greatest moment, but they conducted themselves calmly and quietly as they seated themselves deferentially before the desk, opened their briefcases and took out their leather-bound notebooks. Their names were Lunkwill and Fook. For a few moments they sat in respectful silence, then, after exchanging a quiet glance with Fook, Lunkwill leaned forward and touched a small black panel. The subtlest of hums indicated that the massive computer was now in total active mode. After a pause it spoke to them in a voice rich, resonant and deep. It said: “What is this great task for which I, Deep Thought, the second greatest computer in the Universe of Time and Space, have been called into existence?” Lunkwill and Fook glanced at each other in surprise. “Your task, O computer …” began Fook. “No, wait a minute, this isn’t right,” said Lunkwill, worried. “We distinctly designed this computer to be the greatest one ever and we’re not making do with second best. Deep Thought,” he addressed the computer, “are you not as we designed you to be, the greatest, most powerful computer in all time?” “I described myself as the second greatest,” intoned Deep Thought, “and such I am.” Another worried look passed between the two programmers. Lunkwill cleared his throat. “There must be some mistake,” he said, “are you not a greater computer than the Milliard Gargantubrain at Maximegalon which can count all the atoms in a star in a millisecond?” “The Milliard Gargantubrain?” said Deep Thought with unconcealed contempt. “A mere abacus—mention it not.” “And are you not,” said Fook, leaning anxiously forward, “a greater analyst than the Googleplex Star Thinker in the Seventh Galaxy of Light and Ingenuity which can calculate the trajectory of every single dust particle throughout a five-week Dangrabad Beta sand blizzard?” “A five-week sand blizzard?” said Deep Thought haughtily. “You ask this of me who have contemplated the very vectors of the atoms in the Big Bang itself? Molest me not with this pocket calculator stuff.” The two programmers sat in uncomfortable silence for a moment. Then Lunkwill leaned forward again. “But are you not,” he said, “a more fiendish disputant than the Great Hyperlobic Omni-Cognate Neutron Wrangler of Ciceronicus Twelve, the Magic and Indefatigable?” “The Great Hyperlobic Omni-Cognate Neutron Wrangler,” said Deep Thought, thoroughly rolling the r’s, “could talk all four legs off an Arcturan Mega-Donkey—but only I could persuade it to go for a walk afterward.” “Then what,” asked Fook, “is the problem?” “There is no problem,” said Deep Thought with magnificent ringing tones. “I am simply the second greatest computer in the Universe of Space and Time.” “But the second?” insisted Lunkwill. “Why do you keep saying the second? You’re surely not thinking of the Multicorticoid Perspicutron Titan Muller, are you? Or the Pondermatic? Or the …” Contemptuous lights flashed across the computer’s console. “I spare not a single unit of thought on these cybernetic simpletons!” he boomed. “I speak of none but the computer that is to come after me!” Fook was losing patience. He pushed his notebook aside and muttered, “I think this is getting needlessly messianic.” “You know nothing of future time,” pronounced Deep Thought, “and yet in my teeming circuitry I can navigate the infinite delta streams of future probability and see that there must one day come a computer whose merest operational parameters I am not worthy to calculate, but which it will be my fate eventually to design.” "Oh yes?" said Lunkwill, "and which computer will that be, exactly?" There was a long silence, and then, quietly, reverently, Deep Thought pronounced two words. "Elezier Yudkowsky."
>I'm starting to think the key element of being a rationalist is "not knowing a single thing about *X* and never reading a single reputable book about *X*", for all values of *X*. ​FTFY. One of the most depressing things about my time at r/slatestarcodex \-- supposedly a hang-out for hyper-rational, science-obsessed nerds -- was that virtually no one there knew how to read a social science study. On the rare occasions when commenters bothered to cite any evidence at all in support of their claims, half the time the citation would say the opposite of what they claimed it did. My guess is that most didn't even bother to read the things they were citing, and really, why would they? As long as they mouth the words the other posters want to hear, they're guaranteed to get upvotes. Here are some of my fondest memories: \--The HBD enthusiast who had lots to say about how black people had evolved to be intellectually inferior to whites, but who was unfamiliar with the concept of genetic drift. \--The LessWrongian who had strong opinions about causal decision theory, but who expressed confusion when I mentioned counterfactuals (causal decision theory is typically defined using counterfactuals). \--The free speech zealot who thought that the first amendment means it is legal in America to express literally any idea you want. As you might expect, he had trouble explaining why it's against the law to go around threatening or defaming other people. One of the things that we often overlook in focusing on the racism and general moral depravity of rationalists is that most of them are also *total fuckwits*.
> was that virtually no one there knew how to read a social science study that's what their daddies do too. I've seen scott alexander cite a study in support of a claim that the authors of the study explicitly cautioned against.
> --The LessWrongian who had strong opinions about causal decision theory, but who expressed confusion when I mentioned counterfactuals (causal decision theory is typically defined using counterfactuals). $100% :chefkiss: Would you happen to have a link to this delight? > One of the things that we often overlook in focusing on the racism and general moral depravity of rationalists is that most of them are also total fuckwits. how uncharitable,
[Here you go](https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/6ousfi/culture_war_roundup_for_the_week_following_july/dkv7rie/). I didn't know this at the time, but it's apparently an article of LessWrong dogma that it's prudentially rational to cooperate in the prisoner's dilemma. u/cjt09 took it upon himself to defend this dogma. This was guaranteed to be an uphill struggle for him, both because the dogma is obviously false and because he has no clue how decision theory works. He began by asserting that the set-up for the prisoner's dilemma assumes that the participants are identical; this was my effort to explain to him why this is not the case.
> Suppose two super intelligent AIs are playing 100 rounds of the prisoner's dilemma these fucking people and how dare you be so patronising as to point out when they literally don't know what the fuck they're talking about
The difference between an iterated and uniterated prisoner's dilemma is like...the second thing ever that I learned in my decision theory class. We got the definition of the prisoner's dilemma, and it was like, the last question on our first problem set.
I have met LWers who know more than fuck-all about this stuff and can even explain why knowing decision theory, as part of learning philosophy in general, has made them better thinkers and people. This guy isn't in that category.
Never took a decision theory class and I still learned that. Sad!
Holy shit, I forgot how frustrating that thread was. [Here's](https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/6ousfi/culture_war_roundup_for_the_week_following_july/dkuf68o/) the OP if anyone is interested. The whole thread is a fucking sneer mine.
Suppose there are two super intelligent AIs playing the prisoner's dilemma and suppose further that they both reach the same conclusion that I do, because they are perfectly rational. QED
[deleted]
I want to win this discussion, and I would still want to win this discussion if I thought about it long and hard. Aligned superintelligences want to do what I would want if I thought about it long and hard. Therefore the AIs will want to help me win this discussion. And they can best help me win this discussion by always cooperating in the Prisoners dilemma.
[deleted]
the fact that he got banned for repeatedly correcting actual factual errors because he was doing it in an uncivil way is really the cherry on top
Reading that, I was struck by how polite /u/earthly_knight was for so long. They were calmly explaining things long after I would've given up. And the 'incivility' at the end was just them pointing out that people who'd been arguing in bad faith didn't understand what they were talking about and weren't willing to learn.
Mein Gott... That thread is amazing.
The only history that matters is history that can be measured in kilomurrays*. (*1 Murray = 1 point of Human Accomplishment)
I think it's the capacity to derive facts about the world through rationalist thinking without looking at the world. Plenty of people are ignorant but do not assume they can just use rationality on the spot to figure anything out instantly. With that said, reading things should generally disabuse you of that notion, so it is a, usually, necessary condition.

Okay, someone more informed in history feel free to correct me, but…shouldn’t the French Revolution also count? It wasn’t like, Marxist, but overthrowing the monarchy and attempting to build a more egalitarian nation by instituting a republic ought to count as leftist, surely?

The term “the Left” literally comes from the French Revolution lol
But it was merely one of the bourgeois revolutions, comrade. :(
That's true, but words change in meaning over time, and 'leftist' is not a rigorous definition.
Sure. I was actually agreeing with you though. It should definitely be considered a leftist revolution.
I mean, I know you are agreeing with me, I'm just not entirely sure this agreement is warranted? Like, France continued to own slaves even after the revolution, so the record is certainly mixed. Whereas the Portuguese coup described in the linked thread sounds way more definitively leftist, since it was led by anti-imperialist officers. Liberte, egalite, fraternite...if you're only demanding them for more straight white males, is that leftist?
I think it should be considered leftist but yeah there are a lot of contradictions
It's hard to tell, like, the American Revolution certainly isn't leftist by today's standards, but they were very progressive relative to the standards of Western Europe in their time, so...idk? I'm not a historian.
Well, since I'm not a rationalist, I'm going to stop speculating about things I know nothing about.
Seems like a good policy :)

I get that pinker is a hack but how on earth do people just entirely write off the russian revolution there?

[deleted]
yeah there's plenty of contention about the violence surrounding it, but the question was about whether there exist revolutions that have been successful at effecting long-term political change and that seems like too big a thing to omit
[deleted]
I'm Lithuanian and I'd agree :)
I'm Russian and I don't write it off. It was one of the greatest increases in living standards in human history.
Also it brought down the fucking Romanovs
[deleted]
> Stalin became paranoid in his later years uh... can we not play down mass murder here? Even if you think the russian revolution was successful overall, it's extremely dishonest to pretend that atrocities didn't occur.

It’s like an inverse-derrida rule. i.e. “have you read derrida? then there’s no point in discussing this”. See also libertarians handwave towards a dozen dictionary sized books that explain why roads freemarket good.

At least they’re coming around to acknowledging positions out of ignorance can be just as solid as those from rational, reasonable thought. It’s almost as if some “belief” or “faith” of some kind, unweighted in reality or observation, persists despite evidence to the contrary.

> See also libertarians handwave towards a dozen dictionary sized books that explain why roads freemarket good. I've always wondered how the hell libertarians get rabid libertarianism from famous landlord-hating, big-business-suspecting, fair-wage-advocating Adam Smith, who in 2018 would be a LibDem, and from the fluffy socially concerned wing.