it should have been obvious to anyone at this point that anybody who openly hates on this community generally or me personally is probably also a bad person inside and has no ethics
(https://www.facebook.com/yudkowsky/posts/10159408250519228)
posted on February 17, 2021 11:20 PM by
u/DropZeHamma
81
u/Soyweiser58 pointsat 1613604402.000000
Bold of him to assume I have insides at all, he is right about the
ethics (I still don’t know what ethics are an I’m not going to break my
streak by looking it up). And I will hurt you if you trust me, but we
will have to agree on a safeword first.
E: I’m going to edit my silly remark to point out something
important, holy shit these people still don’t get consent. They are
defending Scotts position on ‘if you publish this, I will hurt you’ as
meaning he was somehow warned. And not somebody who dropped a lot of
information on you without you wanting to know it and then putting terms
and conditions on that infodump. Even libertarians get the basics of
reaching agreements.
I guess this will work: Any rationalists who reads this, you now
agree that you are a sneertarget forever, and you are no longer allowed
to complain about us, you must also praise Arthur Chu publicly twice
each month.
E2: please god grant me the strength to not use my fb to post ‘math
pets’ under Yuds rant.
He isn't a man, he is a machine. I wonder how many people see his tweets and still go 'he is a liar' because he created the incharacter mindkill tweets mocking lesswrong a long time ago. I know sarcasm is hard and it depends on community stuff, but 'Social Justice Stormtrooper' and 'I put on my black robe, and mindkill myself'.
(I must embarrassingly admit that the first time I saw the quote I had not seen the Yud reference and legit thought he was off the deep end).
It is just that I knew who Yud was, so I should have noticed the link. (which would have probably have made me notice the dark side of LW/SSC a lot earlier).
LOL you and me buddy, idk what’s stopping me from posting there or at least reacting but it’s only the grace of god protecting me from being doxxed by some deranged rationalists
Yeah, it is clear the rules of niceness etc no longer apply when the sacred garden is [under attack.](https://mobile.twitter.com/HassLiebe777/status/1361526835331424256) If inly they had read enough to realize that people tend to be biassed into shooting the messenger.
every so often someone suggests we shouldn't take hpmor so seriously, that its just an interesting little fanfic with a rationalist slant, but its very clear that hpmor is actually a pretty comprehensive overview of Yud's and the rationalist's worldview.
This is one of the most transparently cult-like statement sI’ve seen
from him. Every critic is a bad person is essentially what people like
scientologists teach.
Harry stared down at the can in his hand, the coldness settling into
his blood. Charming, happy, generous with his favors to his friends,
Draco wasn’t a psychopath. That was the sad and awful part, knowing
human psychology well enough to know that Draco wasn’t a monster. There
had been ten thousand societies over the history of the world where this
conversation could have happened. No, the world would have been a very
different place indeed, if it took an evil mutant to say what Draco had
said. It was very simple, very human, it was the default if nothing else
intervened. To Draco, his enemies weren’t people.
And in the slowed time of this slowed country, here and now as in the
darkness-before-dawn prior to the Age of Reason, the son of a
sufficiently powerful noble would simply take for granted that he was
above the law, at least when it came to some peasant girl. There were
places in Muggle-land where it was still the same way, countries where
that sort of nobility still existed and still thought like that, or even
grimmer lands where it wasn’t just the nobility. It was like that in
every place and time that didn’t descend directly from the
Enlightenment. A line of descent, it seemed, which didn’t quite include
magical Britain, for all that there had been cross-cultural
contamination of things like ring-pull drinks cans.
“Harry Potter”’s thoughts on self-declared future rapist Draco Malfoy
in Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality, chapter 7, by
Eliezer Yudkowsky.
>It was like that in every place and time that didn't descend directly from the Enlightenment.
things you say when you're definitely not struggling with an impulse to myopic narcissism narratively personified as a mysterious dark side
Glad to know that we are all bad people inside who have no
ethics.
I love the cowardly end part of that comment as well. It’s such a
rationalist thing to say something like “everyone who disagrees with me
is a foul immoral scumbag (except those who are not foul immoral
scumbags)”.
I clicked on the link and read some Facebook comments and came away
realizing what a fucking pointless forum-wars circlejerk they (and we)
are engaged in lol. These are real people with real faces completely
wasting their living hours jacking themselves off about the “exchange of
ideas”. The amount of self-importance these people give their little pet
theories and worthless discussions is insane. They’re really deluding
themselves to think this empty internet philosophizing has any stakes
and isn’t just a form of smug entertainment. The fact that many use this
shallow pseudo-intellectual crap as an excuse to be racist on the
internet is what’s funniest here.
> They're really deluding themselves to think this empty internet philosophizing has any stakes and isn't just a form of smug entertainment. The fact that many use this shallow pseudo-intellectual crap as an excuse to be racist on the internet is what's funniest here
Good lord, this is exquisite. Have you considered a career in writing?
When one of the prescient critiques of your movement or social group
is that they sound a lot like a cult, posting “everyone who doesn’t like
us is an evil monster” doesn’t exactly help your case.
I just had the most bizarre moment of serendipity wherein I opened a /r/bestof link to one of your comments in /r/politics, and then immediately opened a link to this comment from lurking the /r/sneerclub/comments page in a new tab. I thought I'd just somehow opened up two tabs of this comments.
How does this tie into the topic at hand? It doesn't, I just wanted to share
I think rationality subculture has reached a critical mass that Yudkowsky no longer cares about growing it. Whoever could become a cult member, already has, the job is now to maintain those inside. “Us vs them” makes him look terrible to the outsiders, but it looks amazing to the insiders, he's their Dear Leader.
Compare the original LessWrong sequences to his *Inadequate Equilibria*. LW sequences were verbose, meandering, but he used simple words and invoked simple metaphors that were appealing to a naïve young STEM person, who hasn't read philosophy, but genuinely wanted to understand the world. *Inadequate Equilibria*, on the other hand, is utterly unreadable. Just extremely convoluted Xenu garbage. It wasn't written with a general reader in mind, it was written for those who already drank the Kool-Aid.
Ok, but every time a Mottenik rando wanders into SneerClub and posts
“wow guys, you real bullies for writing these things about Scott”, I
suddenly feel good about myself and my self-esteem improves.
Please, as an engineering student the rats’ rhetoric is literally
cultural appropriation. They borrow the rhetoric of STEM (nanobots, AGI,
etc.) but none of the actual thoughtprocesses (besides from being
detached from people).
Lol, this is basically saying “Anyone who criticizes me or my friends
is evil”. And this is coming from the figurehead of a community that
aims to be above “tribalism”.
That said, I agree with EY that leaking personal correspondence is an
asshole thing to do most of the time. People on this subreddit seem to
be operating from a view that everything is public unless explicitly
agreed upon in advance to be private. I think that, barring exceptions
for serious whistleblowing, it’s generally good to ask permission before
doing so.
I wasn’t able to find much online about the ethics of publishing
personal email, but there’s a stackexchange
question on the legality that seems to say it’s generally legal with
some exceptions. But just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s
ethical.
> That said, I agree with EY that leaking personal correspondence is an asshole thing to do most of the time... it's generally good to ask permission before doing so.
I agree with that too. I expect most sneerclubbers agree. But also, this leak is clearly an exception. Of course Siskind isn't gonna say "yeah it's okay to leak my email which makes me look like a dishonest racist".
>People on this subreddit seem to be operating from a view that everything is public unless explicitly agreed upon in advance to be private.
People are making fun of the idea that Siskind saying "please don't tell anyone I'm secretly a racist if you do I will have my revenge" puts Brennan under any obligation to keep quiet. It's like Scott complaining that the NYT quoted his feminists = Voldemort line when he asked people not to quote it. Just cuz you make up a rule doesn't mean anyone is obligated to follow it. If you say "blue shells are cheating!" at the beginning of a Mario Kart race, it's not a dick move for someone else to hit you with a blue shell. You just need to stop being a scrub.
I think the Voldemort line might be bait. Stuff he made so it gets quoted an people can go 'see they are dishonest about scott'. It certainly fits the machiavellian nature exposed in the email.
If nothing else, that he thinks races are real and ruled by biological determinism and not the arbitrary creations of human society shows he's a rat who can't be trusted. The guy wants to believe he's on a higher level of humanity than other people and will follow any line that flatters his obscenely-bloated ego.
It was ethical in the context, as Topher explained in the original thread. NYT made an article tying SSC to race science and neoreaction. Scott dishonestly implied this was a hit-job and impugned the character of the NYT writer because he never explicitly said he supported those things.
Topher sees this and realises the he has objective proof that scott is tied to neoreaction and race science, and that if anything the nyt writer was being too kind. The leaking of an email is entirely justifiable in order to rebut the false smears about the nyt writer.
Not only had Topher proof of this, he sat on this for years. While Scotts patients might have been at risk, he said nothing, but only now he dropped this, after Scott quit his job, after he outed his real name, when the only person hurt would have been Scott. If Yud had just went 'well, I have always said I don't accept NRx people, so bye Scott. I'm just as hurt and fooled as everybody else'. And if you could have expected to be the logical conclusion from Yuds earlier remarks.
Turns out, you should not talk shit about the appointed successor.
Plagiarizing myself from the other thread since it looks like this is where the discussion is happening:
I'm getting a Raffensperger vibe: it's a conversation that the other guy chose to initiate, and he did not actually request or receive confirmation that it was off the record, and the recipient released it only after the sender had gone out and publicly denied saying or believing the things he said and believed. Tough call on a personal level, to expose someone you know as a fraud, but I'm not sure uninvolved third parties have a reason to be upset by it.
also:
if you've been texting "pls dont share" with every unsolicited dick pic you send, I've got some bad news for you
Leaking emails is kind of a dick move, perhaps on the level of failing to return your grocery cart. Circumstances that turn it from unethical-by-default to ok-fine are not *everyday*, but they're not extraordinary either.
Certainly less dickish than dropping a 2000-word "secret OR ELSE" onto an unsuspecting inbox.
I think it really depends, i.e. was that a conversation between friends or was that some wannabe Machiavelli (who only knows Machiavelli by name) being unable not to brag to someone they barely know, in a greentext email saying "please do not forward". Obviously in the latter case there is no reasonable trust and therefore no breach of trust.
Another thing is that it is generally considered okay to disclose private conversations when exposing a public lie, because not to do so is to be complacent in a lie (and to effectively lie yourself). Norms against "machiavellian" machinations are much stronger than norms about keeping non public conversations non public.
Probably the former (a conversation between friends), given that the leaker is currently married to Scott's ex-partner. I'd guess they were friends before, or even in some kind of polycule. There must be some interesting drama happening in the Bay Area right now.
I think leaking personal correspondence is generally a jerky thing to do. Given the recent defenses of the NY times article, I could see this as arguably being pertinent to overturning some defenses of him but I'd be willing to be swayed against that. However, given that they have been leaked might as well comment.
I'll be real, if anyone says they'll hurt me if I tattle on them I'm going to tattle so hard people name their firstborn sons after the thing I wasn't supposed to tell.
Bold of him to assume I have insides at all, he is right about the ethics (I still don’t know what ethics are an I’m not going to break my streak by looking it up). And I will hurt you if you trust me, but we will have to agree on a safeword first.
E: I’m going to edit my silly remark to point out something important, holy shit these people still don’t get consent. They are defending Scotts position on ‘if you publish this, I will hurt you’ as meaning he was somehow warned. And not somebody who dropped a lot of information on you without you wanting to know it and then putting terms and conditions on that infodump. Even libertarians get the basics of reaching agreements.
I guess this will work: Any rationalists who reads this, you now agree that you are a sneertarget forever, and you are no longer allowed to complain about us, you must also praise Arthur Chu publicly twice each month.
E2: please god grant me the strength to not use my fb to post ‘math pets’ under Yuds rant.
[deleted]
[deleted]
This is one of the most transparently cult-like statement sI’ve seen from him. Every critic is a bad person is essentially what people like scientologists teach.
lmao
This is incomprehensible gibberish. Isn’t this man supposed to be known for his clear, evocative writing?
“Harry Potter”’s thoughts on self-declared future rapist Draco Malfoy in Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality, chapter 7, by Eliezer Yudkowsky.
I liked the part at the end where he turned into Cartman, screaming “Goddamn hippies!”
when you’re Definitely Not A Cult
Glad to know that we are all bad people inside who have no ethics.
I love the cowardly end part of that comment as well. It’s such a rationalist thing to say something like “everyone who disagrees with me is a foul immoral scumbag (except those who are not foul immoral scumbags)”.
So look Eli. You aren’t evil. You just facilitate and encourage bad things.
It’s just that simple. Stop causing bad things. Quit whining about what’s inside and evil people - you have no idea - and get on with life.
How is he so good every time?
I clicked on the link and read some Facebook comments and came away realizing what a fucking pointless forum-wars circlejerk they (and we) are engaged in lol. These are real people with real faces completely wasting their living hours jacking themselves off about the “exchange of ideas”. The amount of self-importance these people give their little pet theories and worthless discussions is insane. They’re really deluding themselves to think this empty internet philosophizing has any stakes and isn’t just a form of smug entertainment. The fact that many use this shallow pseudo-intellectual crap as an excuse to be racist on the internet is what’s funniest here.
I think Taylor Swift said it better.
When one of the prescient critiques of your movement or social group is that they sound a lot like a cult, posting “everyone who doesn’t like us is an evil monster” doesn’t exactly help your case.
What absolutely bizarre horseshit.
No Thetans were injured during this production.
Ok, but every time a Mottenik rando wanders into SneerClub and posts “wow guys, you real bullies for writing these things about Scott”, I suddenly feel good about myself and my self-esteem improves.
Please, as an engineering student the rats’ rhetoric is literally cultural appropriation. They borrow the rhetoric of STEM (nanobots, AGI, etc.) but none of the actual thoughtprocesses (besides from being detached from people).
Lol, this is basically saying “Anyone who criticizes me or my friends is evil”. And this is coming from the figurehead of a community that aims to be above “tribalism”.
That said, I agree with EY that leaking personal correspondence is an asshole thing to do most of the time. People on this subreddit seem to be operating from a view that everything is public unless explicitly agreed upon in advance to be private. I think that, barring exceptions for serious whistleblowing, it’s generally good to ask permission before doing so.
I wasn’t able to find much online about the ethics of publishing personal email, but there’s a stackexchange question on the legality that seems to say it’s generally legal with some exceptions. But just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s ethical.
Explain why I’m wrong.