posted on February 27, 2019 04:04 PM by
u/PolyamorousNephandus
35
u/G0ldunDrak0n24 pointsat 1551290521.000000
I mean, call me stupid, but I have no idea what this post is trying
to say. It looks like it’s making some sort of point about ethics, but
it only has examples for two of the cases described and the rest is so
boring to read I think my brain took a holiday in the middle of it. The
ending sounds kinda elitist, but again, I don’t really get it.
In case you're not aware, Constantin is using "sociopath" in the Chapman sense, as she noted. This means "someone who doesn't actually care about the community in question, but just seeks to benefit themselves." It's not being used in the clinical sense. (The way you're tl:dring it makes it seem like Constantin was using the clinical sense.)
Yes, thank you, I read the post. The word has pejorative connotations, which you should know given your extensive posting history in linguistics.
Also: how does this help? The "Chapman sense" is gatekeeping crap.
The linked post demonstrates, contrary to the expectations of a typical reader, that AI can now write prose more gripping, coherent, and tethered to reality than some human writers.
I picked up on the subtext mentioned but her literal text is incomprehensible. As best as I can tell she's relying on a completely made up definition of "sociopath". She provided a reference that I skimmed but it doesn't fully connect to how she's using it, and both are orthogonal to both the lay definition and the formal definition of the word.
The definition of sociopath is from Venkatesh Rao's[Gervais Principle](https://www.ribbonfarm.com/the-gervais-principle/), btw. That being said, SR's attempts at explaining how to gatekeep a community from not-Virtuous enough people frankly strikes me as manipulative.
All definitions are made up, so I don't understand your criticism. It's certainly an uncommon definition, but jargon isn't inherently bad - it's just hard for outsiders to understand. (And I don't think Constantin was writing this with the Sneerers as the intended audience.)
The entire post is about people who "occasionally fail" at capital V virtue and how we shouldn't let outside influences destroy or expand our community because our community fucks up sometimes.
You should know that, while self-identified "rationalists" [cue Nic Cage laughing hysterically at the nickname "G" in Bad Lieutenant] are perfectly welcome to come in here and fuck shit up, say stupid shit, and generally cover themselves in glory, doing so to pick fights with my friends over their own and others' pasts of abuse abuse suffered *from* so-called "rationalists" isn't likely to invite my friendly mood.
Fuck off, shitheel.
so most of the post is the regular pop-psychology drivel, and
then
Alice Almost in this scenario is a Sociopath, in
the Chapman sense — she’s trying to expand and dilute the subculture.
And Sociopaths are not just a little bad for the survival of
the subculture, they are an existential threat to it, even though they
are only a little weaker in the defining skills/virtues of the
subculture than the Geeks who founded it. In the long run, it’s not
about where you are, it’s where you’re aiming, and the Sociopaths are
aiming down.
Why the actual fuck would you define “someone trying to expand your
subculture” as a “sociopath”? (the linked post is also some embarassing
“i hate it when people enjoy my hobby” garbage)
Wow, yeah. There is so much wrong there! Both in the linked essay and in the post itself. First, the linked essay's idea of "mops" (i.e. non-geeks who are drawn to geek culture as casual fans, and enjoy the fanworks of the geeks--which, speaking as a geeky creator, I am all in favor of and draw energy from) as "muggles" or "normal" (defined as *interacting like people do on TV*\--which is, in reality, pretty much *abnormal*!)...I mean, that's just so very 80s high school movie. There are Nerds, and there are Cool Kids, and never the twain shall meet, and the nerds are Abnormal and the Cool Kids are Normal, and Normal is defined by some pop culture ideal, and wtf? Who thinks like that past age 14? I don't think actual 14-year-olds think like that anymore.
Second, calling people *sociopaths* because they...are better at being geeky than geeks, but somehow, for some unexplained reason, are not true geeks. For reasons. Reasons that never get spelled out, but are hinted at in this revealing sentence:
>At this stage \[when sociopaths seem like True Creators to the mops\], they \[the sociopaths\] take their pick of the best-looking mops to sleep with. They’ve extracted the cultural capital.
For fuck's sake. Is *everything* about their grabby entitlement to people's bodies, their bitter resentment at not having unlimited access to such?
But worst of all, given that Sarah \[?\] is linking to that essay and implying that PolyamorousNephandus is a "sociopath" as defined in that essay: how fucked up do you have to be to imply that a *sexual abuse survivor* is a "sociopath" diluting the culture so she can extract cultural capital (defined as sex)?
To be clear, I did date her, Michael Vassar, and Andrew Rettek, so if she's looking to get back at me she can absolutely insist that I just spent time with them to sleep with them (even though I, y'know, loved them at the time and they used it against me) and that I am somehow an outgroup spy or w/e. I definitely did bounce once I "had no more use for them" i.e. realized they were shitheads.
But this, of course, ignores all the shit that happened to me at the hands of Rettek and Vassar, which I have repeatedly covered with names and consistent details.
You ever notice how reading these things is so much like having to
sit in class in high school waiting for a bad teacher to finish
patiently explaining something everybody’s worked out from top to bottom
sometime around twenty five minutes ago?
It's worse because there's a teaser of newfound knowledge.
It's more like finding a new cooking blog, and their 'grilled steak' entry has a titillating title and lots of positive reviews, and you start reading their deep motivations for cooking steak properly based on experience and family history, and then the first applicable tip is "don't overcook"...
Followed by all the ways to avoid overcooking. Not wrong, but sooo not what I was hoping for.
Edit: also, "overcooking" turns out to be a metaphor for a personal grievance, and now my steak is somehow bitter?.
Note: I am shaking with anger. This was put out the week after I
finally answered questions about the author’s (who is also my ex)
husband abusing me. I am so fucking furious.
In the name of Robot God most high (and future), what the actual
fuck. As an actual deity (albeit not existing yet and only able to work
through timeless trade), I think I’m allowed to call for a holy war?
So, um, from what I understand. They want more abusers in their
subculture, probably because abuse, especially sexual abuse, as a
V-virtue, is a great thing to select for to create a comfortable enclave
for people codifying the morality of le future god. It’s important for
them to be accomodated, after all they’re bleeding for the group.
Teehee.
I mean, call me stupid, but I have no idea what this post is trying to say. It looks like it’s making some sort of point about ethics, but it only has examples for two of the cases described and the rest is so boring to read I think my brain took a holiday in the middle of it. The ending sounds kinda elitist, but again, I don’t really get it.
so most of the post is the regular pop-psychology drivel, and then
Why the actual fuck would you define “someone trying to expand your subculture” as a “sociopath”? (the linked post is also some embarassing “i hate it when people enjoy my hobby” garbage)
You ever notice how reading these things is so much like having to sit in class in high school waiting for a bad teacher to finish patiently explaining something everybody’s worked out from top to bottom sometime around twenty five minutes ago?
Note: I am shaking with anger. This was put out the week after I finally answered questions about the author’s (who is also my ex) husband abusing me. I am so fucking furious.
In the name of Robot God most high (and future), what the actual fuck. As an actual deity (albeit not existing yet and only able to work through timeless trade), I think I’m allowed to call for a holy war?
So, um, from what I understand. They want more abusers in their subculture, probably because abuse, especially sexual abuse, as a V-virtue, is a great thing to select for to create a comfortable enclave for people codifying the morality of le future god. It’s important for them to be accomodated, after all they’re bleeding for the group. Teehee.
Hypothesis: internet rationalism is Mean Girls with more otiose (ha! get it?) thought experiments