This extract from comment #9 by the man himself is absolutely
staggering:
In the 30s, most decent and educated people reacted to the rise of
Hitler by sneering at him, refusing to engage with anything he said, and
no-platforming him. And that was a perfectly understandable strategy …
but it didn’t work. Its failure led to one of the worst
cataclysms in human history.
He thinks the problem was that people didn’t calmly debate Hitler?
What the actual fuck? READ A BOOK THAT ISN’T ABOUT MATH SCOTT HOLY SHIT!
This is why you get sneered at.
Some people can't handle other viewpoints without getting emotional.
A decade ago some guy wrote a couple of blog posts about how we should try to be more rational. Scott should look him up. Sounds like reading that would help.
Someone touched on this in the comments to his post, but I want to
touch on it again here, since we now know Scott Aaronson reads us.
Scott, you should watch this video by the
youtuber Natalie Wynn. Not because you’re an incel—you’re not—but
because the phenomenon she touches on seems to apply to you. Namely, she
discusses this masochistic tendency to seek out harsh criticism, whether
it’s incels telling each other they’ll never get laid, trans people
telling each other they’ll never pass, or self-identified nerds seeking
out anti-nerd bullying*. Wynn is insightful and, unlike sneerclub,
approaches her discussions with the utmost empathy. I think watching her
vid and reflecting on it would be good for you.
* I’m aware that’s an inaccurate portrayal of us, but that only
strengthens my point.
>since we now know Scott Aaronson reads us.
The post you're commenting on is about him specifically saying he'll no longer read this place, so I'm not sure you'll reach him with a post here.
Comments are open on the post itself though, and he's responding there, so feel free to put it somewhere he'll see it.
Predictably, SneerClub treated the thread as a gift from heaven: a
constant source of inflammatory material that they could use to smear
Scott personally (even if most of the time, Scott hadn’t even seen the
offending content, let alone endorsing it).
That’s a pretty big claim. I’ve seen tons of people mocking SSCers,
but most of the time they are mocked as SSCers, there’s no
implication that their being assholes is Scott’s fault.
Scott Arronson's mistake here is the persecution complex that has collapsed a complex problem into a narcissistic statement about nerds. Though don't get me wrong, r/SSC does make Scott Alexander look bad. And I think this is precisely the substance of the *superficial* problem that Scott had to deal with in eliminating the culture war thread---to be an SSCer is to be an anon associated with /r/SSC and SSC, and Scott is the chief anon of SSC. To explain the first group is to necessarily have to mention Scott. It's an impossible bind for sure. But it's not our fault, and we aren't doing it out of some personal animus for nerds or Scotts.
I will cop to this. I absolutely think that terrible fascists in the comments of a subreddit *named after his blog* are his fault, or at least something he should be held partially responsible for, given that SA constantly winks and nods to them on the blog.
My recollection of what happened is that we were a few posts into a back and forth—we'd sneered at him, so he posted a thing about us, we linked to that thing, and so on. At some point he made the complaint that we spend so much time on him, and a few people made the point that we were only spending so much time on him because he kept talking about us. If he stopped stepping in to talk about us, 'social justice' topics, and so on, then we'd stop linking to his blog. Which he did stop, and then we stopped. (I did keep reading his blog tho, cuz he makes good compsci posts and the lack of nerd angst was refreshing.)
And now, months later, he's back. Who's obsessed with whom, Dr. Aaronson?
It is kind of sad that our little community has such a bad effect on
Aaronson’s feeling of self-worth. I hope for him that he manages to stay
away from here.
I struggle to understand why he considers sneerclubbers to be
anti-intellectual and hateful though. This is a place for us to enjoy
the company of like-minded people, not a place to rigorously explain the
fine details of why and how the linked posts are wrong for the sake of
Rationalists who might be lurking here. It is silly to evaluate the
community here based on how well we explain our viewpoints.
Really, he tells on himself here:
> But at least they’re not the contented and self-confident bullies of my childhood nightmares, kicking dirt down at nerds from atop their pinnacle of wokeness and social adeptness.
Hint: when did wokeness enter the white man's vocabulary? When did wokeness become a pejorative? When did Scott exit childhood?
Answer to your first two questions: when white progressives co-opted the word and used it to mark in-group status. Answer to your second question: around the time he got a career and started a family.
Interesting answers to the first two questions. Those are not the answers I would have give. But as a consequence of both we also arrive at the correct answer to the third question.
[Sealioning](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/873/260/a5b.png) is a favorite tactic (or maybe just a tic) of the rationalist community. They can handle an unlimited about of tremendously wanky "debate" but they can't handle simply being dismissed.
the CENSORIOUS SCUM at viXra have ADMIN WITHDRAWN my important and widely applicable SCIENTIFIC RESULT!!
this shows the CULTURE OF SCIENTIFIC OPPRESSION at viXra, and furthermore,
Now the SneerClubbers—who are perceptive and talented in their
cruelty…
Has he possibly considered that we’re perceptive and talented in this
because we’re fellow mathematicians, computer scientists, etc who are in
the culture and intimately familiar with the reactionary bullshit
they’re producing and pushing back on it? And not, like, people driven
by a hatred of Peano arithmetic?
You all haven't convinced me yet, but I'm starting to agree with sleeps_with_crazy that we should be much more skeptical of individual points as a concept.
I imagine if he considered that point he’d conclude that you (I’m not a sneerer) are _self-hating_ nerds.
You recognize yourselves as STEM nerds, see STEM nerds associating with reaction, hate both reaction but also the possibility of being lumped in with the reactionary STEM nerds, and your defense against that is to adopt the behavior of the anti-nerd bullies who would bully you along with Aaronson... is where I imagine Aaronson’s thoughts would lead to.
But it is striking how I’ve only browsed this sub for a few hours across a few weeks and I’ve already realized you’re almost all one-degree removed from the objects of your sneers. It’d be like if I discovered that an anti-black hate sub was almost entirely made up of blacks who resented other blacks on the grounds that they make the larger community look bad. STEM nerd respectability politics.
> I’ve already realized you’re almost all one-degree removed from the objects of your sneers.
No shit. This isn't the revelation you think it is. 'Yikes' on the black example btw. (Key takeaway: you can stop being a rationalist).
You could sensibly ask: why did I ever spend time worrying
about an anti-nerds-like-me forum that’s so poisonous for its targets
and participants alike? After long introspection, I think the answer is:
there’s a part of me, perhaps a gift from the childhood bullies, that’s
so obsessed with “society’s hatred of STEM nerds,” that it
constantly seeks out evidence to confirm that its fears are
justified—evidence that it can then wave in front of the rest of my
brain to say “you see?? what did I always tell you?” And alas, whenever
that part of my brain seeks such evidence, the world dutifully supplies
mountains of it. It’s never once disappointed.
Now the SneerClubbers—who are perceptive and talented in their
cruelty, if in nothing else—notice this about me, and gleefully ridicule
me for it. But they’re oblivious to the central irony: that unlike the
vast majority of humankind, or even the vast majority of social justice
activists, they (the SneerClubbers) really do hate everyone
like me. They’re precisely what the paranoid part of my brain
wrongly fears that everyone else I meet is secretly like. They’re like
someone who lectures you about your hilariously overblown fear of
muggers, while simultaneously mugging you.
Why still insist we don’t like him for being a nerd? Does he think we
have just an uncontrollable hate of mathematicians and computer
scientists because we hate the scientific method or something?
1. Rationality, logic, and science are for nerds and only for nerds
2. I am a nerd
3. Therefore, all my beliefs are rational, logical, and scientific
4. If you disagree with any of my ideas, you are opposed to rationality, logic, and science
5. If you disagree with any of my beliefs, you hate nerds
Starting to count at 1 not 0? And you call yourself a nerd? [Dijkstra would be mad](https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD08xx/EWD831.html).
I may work as a full-time cancer geneticist, but I don't stretch my education to make weird inferences about anthropology, history, or society in general. I'm basically Nelson Munz.
Nah, I tried, it wasn't funny. And it only served to signal, I know set theory (which isn't even that much of an math accomplishment). Which was an attempt to say that it isn't the STEM part that is being objected to, it isn't an anti STEM thing.
We're talking about a guy who has Arthur Chu categorized as some kind of alpha chad though. As an obviously extremely smart guy, he's tremendously good at filtering out information that contradicts his key assumptions.
Very cool, I did a PhD in materials science too. What’s your area of research?
(Sorry for the topic swerve, this is just what happens when you have a forum full of dang nerd-haters)
Congrats on getting so far and condolences on what must be a pretty stressful time.
Traditional covalent semiconductors or something more exotic? My group did metal oxide perovskites (mostly), sometimes for PV applications, but oxides are almost never very good for that.
Trying out new materials as contacts to traditional semiconductor cells. I'm kinda skeptical about the long term prospects of perovskite PV (the lifetimes are... not great), but we'll see.
by the end of the year I'll have a doctorate in computer science and I had the pleasure of attending one of his talks before he went down this particular rabbit hole, it's been so disappointing to see someone like him degenerate into such a public mess. QCSD is actually a decent book and it's a source of a lot of confusion to me how someone who obviously has a sense of humor can be so thoroughly unable to take even the mildest and most tangential criticism
I’m confused. I know that most people that get sneered at here are probably trained in a STEM field. But the vast majority of the posts that get sneered at are not STEM posts. So I don’t think the STEM bonafides of the sneerers should matter any more than the STEM bonafides of the guy going on about hbd or grey tribe shit should matter.
Aha, you've latched onto the central problem of the Scott Aaronson persecution complex: he doesn't pay attention to what people actually say about him, he just assumes it's because people object to him in the terms imposed *on* his assumptions by his own self-perception.
> Why still insist we don't like him for being a nerd?
My guess is that, being Rational, he's like the scientist in the joke where a group of cattle farmers hire a physicist as a consultant on how to increase profits, since physicists are the most sciencey of scientists. After months of research, the physicist stands before the farmers and begins his presentation: "First, let us define 'cow' as a sphere of uniform density."
Capital-R Rationalism lends itself to that kind of humptydumptyism for reasons I can't really grasp, even though I did it myself during my regretful Rationalist period. Words are redefined to mean what you secretly believe they *really* mean, and in doing that you build your premises into your definitions and, therefore, can never be proven wrong. The weird thing is, I don't think that's the actual conscious motivation.
Honestly, I suspect Scott and those like him have a definition of nerd that is, *by definition*, based on aggressive social ineptness (outside of highly specialized non-mainstream circles) and a resentment of those who don't share this aggressive ineptness.
If you're a math nerd who's good at socializing *generally*\--or if you're awkward but make an effort, don't resent normies for finding your awkwardness uncomfortable sometimes, and don't resent people who *are* good at socializing any more than you'd resent a superior cook or musician--then you're not really a nerd.
Meanwhile, if you've got nothing to do with STEM but you're bad at general socializing, resent the fact that your poor skills sometimes have consequences, and resent the people who are good at it, then I suspect they're happier to accept you as a nerd. Especially if you have some interest in sci-fi/fantasy and/or RPGs.
Basically my guess (and it is admittedly just a guess) is that these people think *social competence* is inherently invalid as a form of merit because it makes too many concessions to normies (women and POC and anyone advocating for them count as normies; hence the description of Scott's adolescent bullies as "woke," when that term is fairly recent as a common pejorative). But the Scotts won't admit this because it makes them look bad and superficial. So they say the issue is about "STEM nerds" when they mean "aggressively socially inept people with some vaguely geeky interests."
All that, and the emotional difficulties from being unable to socialize means you now have an infinite energy source for your resentful, reactionary positions.
Otherwise he'd have to figure out why people actually disagree with him. Listening to critics? Considering their positions? Throwing away the narrative that he's a beleaguered genius and any critic is just a demon of pure hate and cruelty? No thanks!
Also, recognizing motivated reasoning in himself would require acknowledging that it's even possible for rationalists to make the same fallacies they talk about, and actually applying that self-criticism to their beliefs. Based on the incredibly flimsy house of cards they believe in, I am convinced they don't do that.
Plus clearly we're not TRUE nerds because no TRUE nerds would disagree with him, qed.
It seems like he has a martyr complex wrapped up in his constructed self identity of "nerd" - you can draw a straight line back to the post that made him a subject of this subreddit in the first place.
This is good, that man is sick. I’m actually disappointed that the
vow he made a few months ago to not visit sneerclub was not followed
through. (like, actually a little pissed that I’m seeing his blog
again.) Maybe this time he’ll actually stick to it.
Man, nerds are so dependent on making “anti-nerd prejudice” a thing
worth worrying about. And, like, I guess something like it exists
sometimes in some places, but I do not understand the breadth or force
Scott seems to think it has.
I wonder if there’s a generational aspect here. I remember a time when a computer nerd like Bill Gates being the richest man in the world was a novelty, and a joke about not being mean to a nerd because he could become your boss was funny because that social reality wasn’t blatantly obvious. That was around the time of the dot-com boom/bubble.
Now we live in a world where the Zuckerbergs, Bezoses, Musks and Thiels have been software khans from seemingly time immemorial. It’s hard to remember a time when the nerds weren’t on the throne. Sword and sorcery and Infinity Stones are mainstream pursuits and have been for a decade and a half.
Maybe on the ground, though, today’s schoolkids still have the same popular-jocks vs. loser-nerds dynamic. I don’t know, I don’t know any kids, I’d have to ask.
But what I am fairly confident in is that that dynamic was real in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s, which I think is when the Scotts were school-aged. If getting stuffed in lockers and given swirlies is how bullying is depicted on TV and film from that time, and I understand that real life is more subtly terrifying than the TV version, I can imagine that what the Scotts experienced in real life would make me understand their continued referral to it.
But on the bright side: how wonderful to have born into a time and
place when, for the most part, those who hate you have only the power to
destroy your life that you yourself grant them. How wonderful when one
can blunt their knives by simply refusing to open a browser tab.
Wow, hey, thanks Scooter! I needed this reminder after being
consistently retraumatized by your people.
:( I had a very similar reaction. How precious must it be to have "those who hate you" to *only* have "the power destroy your life" through your own browser tabs. TO BE BORN INTO THAT TIME AND PLACE MUST BE WONDERFUL.
In a less horrible but structurally similar case, many of my friends
and colleagues reacted to the rise of Trump by ridiculing him, sharing
memes about his “tiny hands” and orange countenance, no-platforming
anybody who expressed support for him, and just generally treating Trump
like the thuggish conman that he is, refusing to take him any more
seriously than he takes himself. And once again the strategy failed.
I contest this diagnosis. Trump didn’t win because too many
late-night comedians joked about him. He won cuz his opponent was a
horrible candidate. She was the very embodiment of the establishment,
while he positioned himself as a man looking out for the people. That
was a lie, of course, but “make America great again” resonates with
people who have been failed by the establishment more than “America is
already great”. And even those who saw Trump for the fraud he is could
stay home.
With this counter-diagnosis in hand, the way forward is clear. The
danger is that the Dems nominate a Clinton 2.0. Even if they win in
2020, the underlying problems will persist and fester. So it’s not the
Trump voters we need to talk to, but rather the non-Trump voters. It’s
much more effective to spend time on those who can be convinced versus
those set in their ways.
Or to put it to a point: the CWT and similiar internet forums will
not help keep Trump from winning in 2020. So let me ask you Scott, will
you be spending time and money to support a candidate who is willing to
tackle the big problems facing the nation? Or will you just sneer on
your blog about ‘civility’ and frozen peaches?
Okay seriously, what is it with these people and their, "I will happily sit down and have a friendly chit chat with people who want to put me into an oven" routine?
He claimed to want to sit down with Sneer Club for burritos or something. It’s the browsing he’s vowing never to do. And if “sit down” here means interacting with digitally, then he was sitting down with Sneer Club by interacting via back-and-forth blog posts, ostensibly up until this one.
It's true. He did claim to be open to literally sitting down with a Sneerer, but I'm not sure what to make of that claim given that he has shown no ability or desire to understand the basis of the criticisms of him and his associates. He doesn't seem interested in seriously engaging with any of it, either here, which is probably fair, or in the comments of his own blog. His 'nerd identity' position warps his perceptions of what's going on to the point where he's effectively living in a fantasy world. He seems to think that Sneer Club hates him for a start, while the reality is that most people here seem to find him absurd and kind of exasperating more than anything else. He talks about spending hours 'wondering what he can do to stop people hating him', but the first thing he could do is entertain the idea that they might have a point. He defends people who host racist discussions on their blogs, and at the same time he describes people who criticize those people on reddit as being evil incarnate.
They actually believe that stuff about "the left is always crying wolf." That, the laser focus on the left as the real enemy, the bizarre obsession with proving their "charitability" chops, the focus on niceness over substance, and their extreme sensitivity to praise... all add up to being incredibly bad at recognizing bad-faith engagement.
Excellent counter-argument and alternative-position based on a very rational and civil mode of presenting facts and reason. I too will be voting for BERNIE SANDERS in the 2020 Democractic primaries, because....
I
have
been
convinced.
And really, we did all that discourse outside a culture war thread. Free and rational thought lives on.
Completely counterfactual. But I’m going to claim I
did this.
Edit: also, come on, don’t take the flair stuff so serious, it is
clearly a reclaiming of the bad names given by others. A flair going
‘Most Evil’ doesn’t mean the person is ‘Most Evil’, but a sneerworthy
person was calling people here ‘Most Evil’.
Tsk on ineffable. Going after the person recently died is a bit
sneerworthy imho.
Edit2: argh, somebody tell Scott about the term ‘peace in our time’.
There are examples of ‘if you do X the nazi’s will win’ for any example
(except going full Stalin, but then… full Stalin). ARggh noo, tell him
to just drop the subject, ban everybody who is trying to argue (because
MH) and get on with quantum computing. P = NP doesn’t solve itself.
Dick move, perhaps, but "sneerworthy" doesn't make much sense. You're supposed to sneer at bad stuff that other people are holding up as a good or at least worthy.
To be fair, they did pay for it in the most meaningful way possible---the subtraction of internet points. The most valuable of metrics to math nerds. Has not justice been done?
Well, if you notice you are spending too much time on sites you would rather not spend time on, or just want to keep it to a minimum it can be a great tool. Not sure if it is a valid anti OCD tool, but if it helps it helps.
The internet can be a literal attention sucking hell after all. Esp if you go look for people to disagree with. (or just hate read). And blocking sites can be non trivial for low tech skill people. (thankfully people wrote browser addons for it).
I've got a real downer to share with you all, a piece of mod's advice.
I think that no one from sneerclub should engage with Scott Aaronson's invitation to "come to this blog, or email me, or if they pass through Austin, set up a time to hash **it** out over chips and queso (my treat)." I don't know what **it** is, but I don't think it would be a very good idea.
Throughout his posts about sneerclub and sneerpeople, he's described us in very dark terms. Making insinuations about our psyches, implicating us as bullies and anti-nerd/STEM, and analogizing us to muggers, the Holocaust, and the Rape of Nanjing---these are not things you say when being sincere about meeting up for a beer and nachos.
Elsewhere Aaronson has admitted to stalking some sneerclub users online and looking for personal information to clear his mind on our character. But as Aaronson has a habit of telling on himself, I worry that there's more to this. That in the post-CWT period of hyperbolic claims to the harm of sneerclub, I think that Aaronson's post today and stalking of sneerclubbers is related in no small part to how Alexander made us the scapegoat for his CWT-closure and nervous breakdown. I suspect that Aaronsons might have been motivated (and still be motivated) by an attempt to get retribution for perceived harms to his friends or himself.
Rationalists have been talking about doxxing a lot. And we know that rationalist critics have in the past been doxxed (Su3, I think was the name). And that Alexander's personal breaches of anonymity have been blamed on us makes me believe that rationalists may feel justified in trying to dox those they view as the enemy---"they (the SneerClubbers) *really* do hate everyone like me" (emphasis in the original).
I think it would be a very good idea for Scott Aaronson to forget about sneerclub. I think it would be a very bad idea for sneerclubbers to reach out to Aaronson.
EDIT: btw, I thought about it, and I didn't make this a rule. I made this "advice," because it's more serious than rules.
Yes, I think this is a very important warning, especially since there are a lot of ex-LWers and such here who don't realize that these kinds of calls aren't necessarily a good thing to engage with.
I definitely empathize with the feeling of wanting to reach out (I myself almost felt like extending the message "yes, de-sneering your life is a really good idea. Please stick to it."). I have no doubt that other ex-LWers might be more familiar with Scott that I am, and be better judges of the risks. This is my intuition and probable reasoning as to why I think the risks are too high. But everyone will have to make their own judgements.
> Rationalists have been talking about doxxing a lot. And we know that rationalist critics have in the past been doxxed (Su3, I think was the name).
He wasn't doxxed, he was caught sockpuppeting. That is, people figured out that several other accounts who kept popping up to agree with him were him, but they didn't know his IRL identity.
He wasn't doxxed. The situation was that publicly airing proof of his sockpuppeting would have made it easier to dox him, but would not have constituted doxxing in itself. Honestly, I would encourage everyone else to read /u/titotal's link as I don't think his characterization of shea's communication as a "threat" is fair. It sounds like several people sat on the decision for months because they didn't know how to address it in a safe manner.
EDIT: and while we're on this topic, this is also totally untrue:
> Elsewhere Aaronson has admitted to stalking some sneerclub users online and looking for personal information to clear his mind on our character.
Please show me the comment where Aaronson admits to "looking for personal information."
EDIT 2: and of course while no evidence for the above assertion exists, I'm already banned for pointing it out.
A sock puppet is lecturing me about the finer points of sock puppetting... smh
....but i let other's settle this debate because my point is precisely that signs indicate this is a threat to our community, not that the su3 episode constitutes the definitive threat.
Scott admits stalking in the comments on his blog:
> [in response to a suggestion to do this...] [...it was precisely looking at the sneerclub mods’ post histories, including outside of sneerclub,...](https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=4129#comment-1804567)
And looking this up, I see another member of Scott's blog has now begun compiling information on my reddit activity and personal interests. This only further affirms my feelings of how troubling Scott *et al* obsession with sneerclubbers is.
One doesn't "threaten" to do something that is completely fair and in bounds, which exposing su3's significant and persistent lying about IRL events such as EA conferences would have been. Shea's abundance of caution is the only reason you have ammunition against him in the first place.
edit: This is completely ridiculous. Nobody considers doxxing "acceptable." Looking at someone's reddit comments is not doxxing either. On the hand calling scott alexander's workplace trying to get him fired, yes that is doxxing.
> One doesn't "threaten" to do something that is completely fair and in bounds,
This was precisely my point, and I am not sure why you make it after disputing it as fact---rationalists do think doxxing is an acceptable way of curtailing critical behavior, and thus doxxing is a very real threat sneerclubbers should be aware of.
If i recall correctly, they threatened that if he didn't admit to his sockpuppeting, they would doxx him in order to expose it. He admitted it, said "fuck this" and deleted his blog to go on to better things. (Frankly, I think even threatening to doxx someone over something as dumb as sockpuppeting is still garbage behaviour).
[Here is Scott alexander](https://www.tumblr.com/dashboard/blog/slatestarscratchpad/140061032741#_=_) on tumblr responding to the fallout.
I’m a big fan of Aaronson’s work, and I get the feeling he’s a pretty
nice, if misguided, guy. However this is pretty much “They hate us for
our freedom!” levels of deliberately misunderstanding an issue.
This is the sort of step he (and many other people on the internet)
should have taken a long time ago, I hope it improves his life.
Glad the dude is no longer feeding his seemingly obsessive insecurity and I hope him the best.
This extract from comment #9 by the man himself is absolutely staggering:
He thinks the problem was that people didn’t calmly debate Hitler? What the actual fuck? READ A BOOK THAT ISN’T ABOUT MATH SCOTT HOLY SHIT! This is why you get sneered at.
i still can’t believe how much they all care about this idiot subreddit for nerds
Someone touched on this in the comments to his post, but I want to touch on it again here, since we now know Scott Aaronson reads us.
Scott, you should watch this video by the youtuber Natalie Wynn. Not because you’re an incel—you’re not—but because the phenomenon she touches on seems to apply to you. Namely, she discusses this masochistic tendency to seek out harsh criticism, whether it’s incels telling each other they’ll never get laid, trans people telling each other they’ll never pass, or self-identified nerds seeking out anti-nerd bullying*. Wynn is insightful and, unlike sneerclub, approaches her discussions with the utmost empathy. I think watching her vid and reflecting on it would be good for you.
* I’m aware that’s an inaccurate portrayal of us, but that only strengthens my point.
That’s a pretty big claim. I’ve seen tons of people mocking SSCers, but most of the time they are mocked as SSCers, there’s no implication that their being assholes is Scott’s fault.
I reiterate this stance, and furthermore suggest that he block this subreddit completely. (we haven’t even linked him in the last six months)
It is kind of sad that our little community has such a bad effect on Aaronson’s feeling of self-worth. I hope for him that he manages to stay away from here.
I struggle to understand why he considers sneerclubbers to be anti-intellectual and hateful though. This is a place for us to enjoy the company of like-minded people, not a place to rigorously explain the fine details of why and how the linked posts are wrong for the sake of Rationalists who might be lurking here. It is silly to evaluate the community here based on how well we explain our viewpoints.
Has he possibly considered that we’re perceptive and talented in this because we’re fellow mathematicians, computer scientists, etc who are in the culture and intimately familiar with the reactionary bullshit they’re producing and pushing back on it? And not, like, people driven by a hatred of Peano arithmetic?
someone please crowdfund him a therapist
Why still insist we don’t like him for being a nerd? Does he think we have just an uncontrollable hate of mathematicians and computer scientists because we hate the scientific method or something?
He really needs those survey results so he can see just how many people here are (de)converts.
And so do the rest of us, hint hint
This is good, that man is sick. I’m actually disappointed that the vow he made a few months ago to not visit sneerclub was not followed through. (like, actually a little pissed that I’m seeing his blog again.) Maybe this time he’ll actually stick to it.
Man, nerds are so dependent on making “anti-nerd prejudice” a thing worth worrying about. And, like, I guess something like it exists sometimes in some places, but I do not understand the breadth or force Scott seems to think it has.
Fuck this is going on my CV. Noted computer scientist Scott Aaronson, winner of an Alan T Waterman award, etc., etc. stalks me on reddit.
(Also, my flair hasn’t been “unpleasantly radical” for a while now. How long has he been stewing on this?)
Wow, hey, thanks Scooter! I needed this reminder after being consistently retraumatized by your people.
[deleted]
Having a very normal one.
Edit:
I contest this diagnosis. Trump didn’t win because too many late-night comedians joked about him. He won cuz his opponent was a horrible candidate. She was the very embodiment of the establishment, while he positioned himself as a man looking out for the people. That was a lie, of course, but “make America great again” resonates with people who have been failed by the establishment more than “America is already great”. And even those who saw Trump for the fraud he is could stay home.
With this counter-diagnosis in hand, the way forward is clear. The danger is that the Dems nominate a Clinton 2.0. Even if they win in 2020, the underlying problems will persist and fester. So it’s not the Trump voters we need to talk to, but rather the non-Trump voters. It’s much more effective to spend time on those who can be convinced versus those set in their ways.
Or to put it to a point: the CWT and similiar internet forums will not help keep Trump from winning in 2020. So let me ask you Scott, will you be spending time and money to support a candidate who is willing to tackle the big problems facing the nation? Or will you just sneer on your blog about ‘civility’ and frozen peaches?
Scott Aaronson is a rationalist? I genuinely didn’t know that and/or was getting my Scott As confused.
Completely counterfactual. But I’m going to claim I did this.
Edit: also, come on, don’t take the flair stuff so serious, it is clearly a reclaiming of the bad names given by others. A flair going ‘Most Evil’ doesn’t mean the person is ‘Most Evil’, but a sneerworthy person was calling people here ‘Most Evil’.
Tsk on ineffable. Going after the person recently died is a bit sneerworthy imho.
Edit2: argh, somebody tell Scott about the term ‘peace in our time’. There are examples of ‘if you do X the nazi’s will win’ for any example (except going full Stalin, but then… full Stalin). ARggh noo, tell him to just drop the subject, ban everybody who is trying to argue (because MH) and get on with quantum computing. P = NP doesn’t solve itself.
TLDR: Do not get into contact with Scott Aaronson about sneerclub. I do not think it is safe. You can read my longer reasoning below.
I’m a big fan of Aaronson’s work, and I get the feeling he’s a pretty nice, if misguided, guy. However this is pretty much “They hate us for our freedom!” levels of deliberately misunderstanding an issue.
This is the sort of step he (and many other people on the internet) should have taken a long time ago, I hope it improves his life.
There are incels that are less self-pitying than the Scotts.