… and it’s just as bad as you would imagine. Most of it is him complaining about how he’s not getting any sex because he is such a Nice Guy, punctuated by him bragging about his sexual escapades and the usual misogyny you expect on SSC. Here is a selection of quotes:
manipulation is my only *natural* skill, and the one that I’ve honed the most.
I completely get and agree with Neoreaction, my only objection is about scale. In the world I want to live in, I am a Sovereign King of my own household, where the only options are Obedience and Exit.
I lived with a harem of attractive, submissive women who called me their ‘Master’ and pretty much voluntarily structured their lives around making me happy.
…attempting to get a date at a social event dedicated to dating would result in me getting maced.
Sounds like a great guy.
SJW crap just happened to be the sort of cancer that metastasized into Tumblr and Twitter and the other ‘instant feedback’ sites, so it’s got the strongest hold there.
A woman is coerced by a high-status male into having sex, partially against her will. She feels powerless and frustrated at this, doubly so because she can’t get any validation that it actually happened the way she feels it did. She tries to seek some sense of justice, but discovers that his status protects him.
Then, she begins seeking out low-status males to inflict harm on, as a proxy for the high-status male that she’ll never be able to get back at. This partially assuages her sense of powerlessness, but she still feels unsatisfied – because the *real* source of her own powerlessness is out of her reach.
Such deep insights.
Why don’t you take a chance with someone who isn’t a jerk for once?” She looks at me and says “I’m sorry, it’s just not going to happen.”
Also, when people spell out “what you’re doing wrong” and you say “no, I’m pretty darn sure I’m not doing any of that”, now you’re a DENYING horrible rapey misogynist.
You really proved them wrong there. (source)
It was Scooter who helped get Brett to the Bay Area in the first place. I feel a bit bad blaming Scott for bringing the guy who turned out to be a horrible abuser, but I do think he needs to… update his priors about whether online misogynists are wonderful people. And then:
triggers my inner “sadistic neo-reactionary nihilist” to say “why is this sad? This is great! It guarantees an underclass that people can feel superior to, and feel no compunction against depriving and abusing.”
I mean, seriously – have you actually considered the implications of a society in which there’s no one to do horrible things to? A society in which inflicting non-consensual suffering and shame and domination on ANYONE gets called ‘abuse’?
Sometimes I think the Japanese had the right idea in WW2 – pick a whole segment of the population (preferably a population you’ve recently conquered), Other them, and then give them to your warrior and leader classes as playthings.
my actual worldview is a weird sort of nihilistic, depersonalized, ultra-authoritarian fascism straight out of 1984, so it’s kinda hard to find people to flag tribal affiliation towards.
Can you explain the difference, in a way that a sadistic sociopath would understand and accept?
Maybe if someone describes themselves as a sadistic sociopath who want to keep young girls as slaves, you should take their word for it, not bring them to parties and introduce them to potential targets?
Finally classic rationalist self-image:
after 40 years of being not just “the smartest guy in the room”, but head-and-shoulders above an ungrateful mob of pitchfork-wielding yokels
I don’t understand how anyone thought this guy might be a good person. How do you look at someone saying “you know, the Japanese probably had the right idea with Nanking” and think “yes, this seems like a reasonable and good person I should invite to be part of my social circle”?
Honestly, the fact that no one considered that a guy explicitly calling for the abuse and degradation of others might abuse and degrade others is just another level of horrible on top of his own actions. If he had put some effort into not looking like a horrible person you could understand how some people might have been unwilling to accept that he was an abuser. That behavior is tragic, but it’s not a flaw that’s unique to rationalists. But he’s completely open about his desire to abuse people! Missing that isn’t a regrettable mistake, it’s willful blindness.
This is just another example of the flaws in the rationalist notion of “charity”. Nominally, it’s supposed to mean that you don’t put words in people’s mouths or call them things they wouldn’t agree with. In practice, it means never ever calling anyone anything bad even if they agree with that description. Unless that person is a leftist.
The projection is so profound in this, it’s almost bewildering someone could have such a dearth of self awareness.
So this is the dark aesthetic we’ve been hearing about
maybe I’m missing something but what I don’t really get is what value this guy added to the community that people felt the need to jump to his defense like he was a major community figure. like did he plan events or run a cool blog or teach rationality classes or something?
Somebody has to fill me in here, I thought he lived in the Mid-West?
Oh he’s _that_ guy!
I hadn’t made the connection. It all makes sense now.
Holy shit! I remember reading the harem quote on SSC and thinking there’s no way this guy can be serious.
The fact that so many people accepted it at face value actually did a lot to change my opinion of the comment section there.