r/SneerClub archives
SSC being down makes it harder to check the comments for stuff like this (literally) breathtaking self-own from Steve Sailer, in which he explains how he got like he is (https://i.redd.it/r9ulpg0p6u751.png)

I could go for an easy explanation why this phenomenon is both real and not impacted by his personal experience, but “I’ve inhaled car exhaust for years and turned out great!” is an argument that speaks for itself.

It seems like being intentionally reductive is their goal most of the time.

Possibility A:

1.) They spend 15 seconds writing something incredibly stupid, like this.

2.) You take 3-10 minutes to respond.

3.) They ignore what you just said in an asymmetric time-wasting contest.

Possibility B:

1.) They say the stupid.

2.) You say “that’s stupid”.

3.) They say something like “got any proof?” or attack your A.) intelligence B.) emotional maturity or C.) political inclinations.

Such algorithmic elegance can only be achieved by people who wish they were computers
Boom, roasted

Wasn’t there a Sailer post where he argued that Woodstock only sang american/british and not french and spanish songs because only the brits and americans won ww2? (lolololo and Eh?). Which was one of those things which made me go ‘what an idiot’, wait that is steve sailer, people think this guy is smart/important.

Sailer's a humongous embarassing dipshit even by alt-right standards.
I love how the leading apostle of HBD is a blogger with a marketing degree.
As opposed to...who, though?
I dunno Nick Land's at least read a book.
Nick Land is a zillion times smarter than the rest of these guys put together, has read more than the rest of them put together, and is still a ridiculous waste of intellectual effort
There's really nowhere else to ask: is it worth reading the guy or not? I'm on a "pieces of shit with something to say" binge and so far it's been a huge disappointment.
no, except on an "OKAY I DID THE FUCKING READING" basis he's interesting and has been genuinely inspirational to some non-shitty people (as well as the shitty ones), but I don't think at any time has he ever actually been *good.* * Fanged Noumena - this is from his "interesting, not yet an out and proud shithead" period, before the drugs fried his brain. Download this and skim it for flavour. That's really all you need from it. * The Dark Enlightenment - the original tedious essay; The Fucking Reading. This is a fucking grind, but he's more concise than Moldbug. * Phyl-Undhu - his first foray into horror fiction, this is actually pretty good! But it's of the neoreactionary self-blackpilling genre. On libgen. * the rest - ehh Really, you'll get by just reading *Neoreaction a Basilisk*, which is actually fun and enjoyable as well as informative.
> he's more concise than Moldbug Never has a sentence conveyed so little about something. That's like saying "less of a downer than Schopenhauer." Dude writes like the only things he's ever read in his life were fringe sectarian pamphlets and the monologue from Atlas Shrugged. Sorry, it's just that Moldbug was on my list and he's like 70% of my regrets, he made me miss fucking Evola. I will check out Fanged Noumena because I like the cover. That's just where I'm at right now.
Sandifer read Moldbug so nobody else has to, she killed her brain for our sins
If ~200 or so pages is still in "tried" category then only tried. I usually like long-winded stuff because it tends to reveal a lot more about the author. He's that nerd with cystic acne who needs to be reminded at least 2 times to speak loud enough, telling you about the dark secrets of the world.
If you thought Evola was rough try Guenon. Less abhorrent views but much more dull reading.
> the monologue from Atlas Shrugged Just had some flashbacks to my teens. The horror.
>Really, you'll get by just reading *Neoreaction a Basilisk*, which is actually fun and enjoyable as well as informative. My favorite thing about Sandifer is this incredible line from the top Amazon review: >If you are interested in a good takedown of neoreaction, go read Scott Alexander
>but he's more concise than Moldbug That's like saying "but it's tastier than dogshit"
Started less shit than the big bang.
*Neoreaction* was 5 stars, would highly recommend.
Well significant parts of *Fanged Noumena* are definitely on the *fried* end of the scale
true true, before, during and just after. to be fair, pounding techno and shedloads of pills didn't *usually* have this effect.
The impression I get is that he spent too much time with his stereo in his office and significantly less at the club
[Presented without comment](https://twitter.com/Steve_Sailer/status/1184965375236030464)
Oh, c'mon. Sailer's charming. It's like specializing in dissonance in music composition.

Leaded gas didn’t cause Boomers to be stupid, take it from me the guy who huffed it for 4 years and now can’t shut up about phrenology.

Ow forgot to mention here, figured out why Scott never said anything publically in support of BLM, he doesn’t believe black people are hurt more by cops, he cites the science. There is some sort of old drunk deleted comment in which he says so.

shit wow I have an archive here, do you have keywords or something btw searching the archive is a shitfest, they repeat themslves SO MUCH and they RAMBLE ON AND ON
I think its something like “criminal justice: more than you wanted to know”. The “more than you wanted to know” is definitely in the title so search that. Edit: http://archive.is/97U8b
Ah yes this one is a "classic" if by classic you mean "one of the many posts where Scott thinks he is cleverly disguising his racism but actually not at all"
Nah that is an article it was a deleted comment.
It was under the article about that 'github study' one of his fans mentioed he had the paranoid rant saved. In the comments. It was on the wayback machine but only on one of th early editions. The comment below it was 'make it an article' or something and scott talked about him being drunk and it after 3 iirc. E: one of the fine people (With fans like those, what are we even here for?) at SSC digged [up a link](https://web.archive.org/web/20160216090428/http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/02/12/before-you-get-too-excited-about-that-github-study/#comment-325869) so you don't have to. Note, I don't think you should put that much faith in how much a drunk post is a sign of 'true belief' btw. Yes drunk people have less inhibitions, but they are also generally pretty stupid and emotionally focused. And I mentioned in the SSC post that I was dissapointed, and I was, I expected something so much worse than this run of the mill 'im not a rightwinger, but ...' post (with an added bit of over-trusting of scientific research). From a comment of Scott downthread: "No, I don’t think the testing thing is a deliberate attempt to hurt minorities. I think that it’s a deliberate attempt to increase the power of cultural gatekeepers / decrease the ability of people to work outside the system, and that anything that does that (serves Blue purposes) will be declared to be pro-minority, anything that does the opposite will be declared to racist, and what actually does or doesn’t help minorities doesn’t really figure into the calculus."
[Here it is!](https://web.archive.org/web/20160215021530/http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/02/12/before-you-get-too-excited-about-that-github-study/#comment-325869) It sets out a lot of the SSC theory of blue/red/grey tribes pretty concisely, unlike the original post. The comments were made on 14 Feb 2016, and deleted by [29 Feb 2016](https://web.archive.org/web/20160229015506/http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/02/12/before-you-get-too-excited-about-that-github-study/#comment-325869).
Yes. that one, dont forget to scroll down for scAlexs reaction to the reactions.
What was the reaction to the reactions?

haha sherman oaks

this is a fantastic post

RIP, can’t show scott alexander’s comment where he says he loves hbd blog as proof he’s racist to dumbass rationalists anymore