posted on February 26, 2021 12:04 AM by
u/completely-ineffable
70
u/DELETED50 pointsat 1614300671.000000
And you can’t openly attack trans black women - that would be super
transphobic racist sexist. Plus it wouldn’t work; there aren’t that many
of them, and they’re not powerful enough to be scary.
After reading this, I’m quite sure Scott has never watched more than
2 minutes of Fox News. And it may be possible that he’s never actually
spoken to a Republican. Because this
is the rising star of the party.
Tbh a more Scott possibility is that he is in fact well aware of that but is doing the usual republican gaslighting the kind that works in some place like SF within those weird communities that are “racists under siege” more than “racists proudly marching on the capitol”
In addition to being very stupid about how politics works, this is
not even mildly original or interesting or new. The Republicans have
been playing the anti-elite card ever since Spiro Agnew. Scott seems to
think this is a bold and daring new tactic when it’s been bog-standard
for over 50 years.
> The Republicans have been playing the anti-elite card ever since Spiro Agnew. Scott seems to think this is a bold and daring new tactic when it's been bog-standard for over 50 years.
Scott also thinks rehashed 19th century race science is new and bold, so...
Politics is motivated by tribal hatred. You tell your people that the
other side hates them and wants to kill them; they need to fight back.
The Democrats are great at this - cis white men hate you, they deny your
right to exist, the cruelty is the point, resist or be destroyed.
I am once again baffled when I read sentences like this. Who in the
DNC is openly talking about how cis white men are the enemy? How is
Scott’s brain so fucking broken that he believes the Democratic Party is
exclusively comprised of Tumblr posts he read in 2014?
> So the Democrats get this great strategy for mobilizing their base with lurid stories about how various identity groups are ruining everything. And the best you, as the party with most of these identity groups, have been able to fight back with is "Uh, sometimes we're not! You take that back!"
Love to live in Scott's universe, where the Republicans definitely never ever claim that "various identity groups are ruining everything"
Will Wilkinson's substack essay on this was very good. He pointed out that it's ironically the so-called rationalists who have this fetish for how they see the world as *the one and true way* to see the world who therefore are completely closed off to "updating their priors."
What fucking planet does he spend his time on?
This quote (especially the "uh, sometimes we're not" part) keeps reminding me of the recent [Elizabeth Sandifer essay](http://www.eruditorumpress.com/blog/the-beigeness-or-how-to-kill-people-with-bad-writing-the-scott-alexander-method/) on Siskind as well -- looking at *Untitled*, she points out how he has sort of erased the original feminist complaint, to paint the initial attack as 'feminists saying men are bad,' rather than the inciting phenomenon being 'sexism,' because that's how he sees it from his perspective.
And in this essay he's doing the same thing -- it's as though he exists in a space where the initial inciting incident was democrats saying 'cis white men suck' (???), and the extent of conservatives' relationship to minorities is, like, saying "not all men" or "all lives matter."
It's interesting how little people who are actually minorities factor into this analysis -- it's just white people being performatively concerned about racism, or cishet people who "conspicuously love ... LGBT". And then his (presumably satirical) "modest proposal" is that Republicans should make up their own form of bigotry to be performatively concerned about ('classism') to gain votes or whatever. But it never really seems to occur to him that maybe some people are concerned about bigotry *because it has real deleterious effects*, and not just as a form of virtue signaling.
This undercurrent runs throughout the post -- he talks about how "you could get black people and hispanic people on board with this anti-'classism' campaign, since right now they don't vote republican because they have been convinced by democratic elites that the white working class is racist." But it never seems to occur to him that maybe minorities don't vote Republican because the Republicans consistently take actions to actively make minorities' lives worse. The existence of actual bigotry is completely absent from the discussion.
> initial inciting incident was 'democrats saying cis white men suck' (???), and the extent of conservatives' relationship to minorities is, like, saying "not all men" or "all lives matter."
Yes!
As you put it, this arises from a complete ignorance of American history or empathy for other people. The notion that American racism really began with a "kill all white cis men" meme on Tumblr 2014 is insane. And I can't tell if it's a function of people like Scott being genuinely very dumb or being way too online.
And the irony of them using the 'gray tribe' label to paint themselves as a sort of enlightened group immune to petty biases, while simultaneously adhering to a dogmatic following based on a cult of personality, with its own jargon and assumed truths and precepts.
When bloggers and Twitter say they hate Republicans, it's just like when the President of the United States bashes people. Or when he says "Hey, my devoted followers! Those people, the ones right over there, they hate you and are doing something terrible! You gotta go down there! They need to be stopped from doing the thing, today, right over there! Or America will end!"
Imagine hearing this
> Politics is motivated by tribal hatred. You tell your people that the other side hates them and wants to kill them; they need to fight back.
and not connecting it to Republican bigotry
Classic HBD-endorsing Scott Siskind
Is a large part of this guy's deal down to having a massive chip on his shoulder at not getting in to an Ivy League college despite possession of what he regards as a self-evidently superior intellect?
110%!
One of the better Mendicus Moldbug posts was about how public universities (when he attended) used to be more of a meritocracy. So! Even though he went to Berkeley and worked in a professional tech role his whole life and has exclusively lived in SF, he *isn't* a member of The Cathedral because Berkeley in the 1980s when it was full of (more) white nerds was Actually Good.
He did graduate work at Berkeley then? Well, my point still stands that he is a long SF resident with credentials but uses stupid loopholes to distinguish himself.
yes, he bombed out of grad school and wrote a long rant about how computer science was therefore corrupt as an institution
(no I'm not going looking for it)
~63k undergrads at the Ivys, so assuming 4 classes of equal size and the no change in size across time, around 1M alumni of the Ivy League. ~2.5M alumni of the top 18 Universities and top 18 liberal arts colleges (minus Navy/West Point) (top 18 because Cornell is number 18)
Berkeley (US News rank 22), by itself has ~500k alumni and a student body half the size of the entire Ivy League!
Ah, I genuinely wasn't sure if you were trying to explain that very few people go, which would have been clearer with some estimates of the number of alumni of all other colleges, or if you were highlighting that the absolute number of alumni is large.
“Dumb person’s smart person”
Anyway, it looks like he’s really gone off the rails since coming out (or being ‘outed’ - lol), even the quality of his dreary prose has really deteriorated to the tabloid level with this new substack
Given what he said before about quitting his job, I have half a mind to think he’s just desperately trying to make money, but I also have half a mind that he’s deranged by the paranoia of the thing
He redefines classes so that republicans can go Khmer Rouge against people wearing glasses, but not against the rich or the presently powerful.
He's also a good example of the new crop of republicans who are total idiots and actually bought into old republican scheming originally intended to try to capture votes from idiots.
Here's the thing. It is unpopular. People begrudgingly identify themselves as morons if you make being a moron cool, but it doesn't work all that great, there's still a lot of insecurity (Scott being a good example himself, where he can't even commit to the role of a moron properly, he has to pretend he's more intellectual about it), and winning the electoral college while losing the popular vote, can not be counted on.
Scott’s exposed now. He’s losing his mystique. He’s lost some respect from colleague writers. And now he’s even getting the Twitter treatment, like he’s any old David Brooks.
So many times over the decade or so, it never felt like you could just call bullshit on him. Because the level of reverence around the guy in the community basically guaranteed that that wouldn’t get much traction.
I mean, that’s how it is in the rationalist community. You *can* be critical but *only* really on their terms. Anyway, I’m relieved to see this developing after all these years.
I really really admired his latest post. It's the most sincere he has been about his political beliefs in a long time. He might try to claim that the post is satirical but his proposals are exactly the things he has been railing against for a long time. They align with his beliefs 100%.
It is essentially his love letter to the Republican Party and especially to trumpism, since trumpism is already at war with colleges, experts,media and wokeness. Basically he is saying keep trumpism and find a more palatable Trump and I'm yours.
His prose has also become sloppier. Usually he was better at hiding his power levels, with a lot of disclaimers and stupid metaphors, but I think the whole situation has gotten to him and he's gone completely mask off.
Lumber barons who own football teams and root them on from their luxury boxes are just quintessential proles, no?
Meanwhile those effete teachers grading papers during the super bowl are fucking elites.
it's really just a rehash of his "blue tribe, red tribe" and steve bannon's "politics is downstream from culture" imo. scott has never lived in say, alabama or mississippi, so he thinks left liberals have completely won the culture war and conservatives can't say anything for fear of being cancelled, therefore conservatives are the lower class and liberals are the upperclass. it's like literal cultural marxism
There is a lot about Trump’s appeal that I’ll never get, but I also
understand that some aspects of him are the result of marketing, and
people fall for marketing all the damn time. He was never a good
business man, and I knew that early on because generally if you’re good
at business your stuff doesn’t end up all the time on the discount rack
at Marshall’s (legit the only place I ever saw a Trump product). But
some people clearly thought that The Apprentice was real, whatever.
What I will never, ever, ever fucking understand is this “Trump loves
the little man and hates the elites that live in NYC”. TRUMP IS FROM NYC
AND LIVES IN A BRASS COATED FANCY APARTMENT YOU ABSOLUTE FUCKING MORON!
HIS ENTIRE SCHTICK HAS BEEN “LOOK AT ME BEING A FANCY NEW YORKER AND
LIVING BETTER THAN YOU, AND HES BEEN DOING IT FOR ALMOST FORTY
YEARS!
Can’t see him eating Ethiopian food though, on account of him having
the food taste of a child, and being a racist shit.
You have to realize when Republican voters talk about "elites", they're not talking about "rich assholes," because they want to be rich assholes. They're talking about those uppity blacks, those screeching bitches, and those whiny f-words who won't shut up about how unfair life is, and how they're trying to ruin America, and think they know better because they have a college diploma.
If them wrecking the balance of power and handing over the future of the world to one or other authoritarian states only hurt them, it'd be a lot less sick how gleefully right-wing extremists are about driving off a cliff in the name of conservatism.
This is a small point about this massive word dump, but uh, the thing
about “politics is motivated by tribal hatred” is uh
I mean, maybe the guy is just a bad writer and is failing miserably
to indicate that this is a local, highly specific phenomenon, but it
sure sounds to me like he thinks he’s Cracked Some Code Of The
Multiverse by generalizing from modern American politics. From a grand
historical worldview, what this is describing is not “politics” in
general, but politics gone very, very, very, very rancid.
Oh, and the other thing—hatred of the outsiders? You want someone
whose entire fucking vision of politics is hatred of the Other?
Let me introduce you to one Donald fucking Trump, who you, Mr. Siskind,
might recall describing as “not a racist” and “not a fascist” in your
past work.
Christ. This is like reading someone who’s tried to concoct an entire
fucking theory of the entire goddamn world, based on their
misinterpretation of 15 seconds of footage from a children’s TV
show.
> This is like reading someone who's tried to concoct an entire fucking theory of the entire goddamn world, based on their misinterpretation of 15 seconds of footage from a children's TV show.
I think you mean an AI deducing the laws of physics from three frames of an apple falling.
What gets me is that these people are supposed to be, well,
rational. A sweeping baseless generalization is kinda the most
basic irrational argument to use.
I’m genuinely surprised that anyone falls for it with Greenwald anymore. As a general rule, actual leftists don’t get invited on Tucker Carlson’s show.
I mean, he titled it *A Modest Proposal*, so it's supposed to be tongue-in-cheek, but I'm pretty sure he thinks he's describing a real phenomenon here, and the satirical part is the proposed solution. Which is crazy, because the phenomenon he's describing is one where Republicans don't focus on perceived grievances against identity groups, despite that being *literally their entire strategy for the past 20+ years*.
Tbh, I'm having trouble disentangling which parts he actually believes and which parts are intended to be jokes, which I think makes it a bad attempt at satire
edit: also his proposed solution is, claim to be marxists but redefine class to be the white working class and industrial business owners, while positioning yourself against intellectuals, artists, academics, 'people who like the gays', etc. I wonder if the historical parallels are intentional, or if he just thinks of this as a fun thought experiment and doesn't realize what he's demonstrating. Ahh who am I kidding, of course he doesn't realize the parallels -- he says 'Trump was really good at this strategy' while also having written 'still crying wolf.' Wow, this is art.
Also not a hint that anti-classism might have any relation at all to actual policies that help working class people materially. The plan seems to be to keep fucking over the working class, but to distract from it with culture war bullshit. Oh wait, that's what they've already been doing for half a fucking century!
This reads like a caricature of how a liberal person thinks a
conservative person would describe elites. Plus, his grouping of elites
includes much of the middle class.
Also…
20% of Americans go to religious services weekly - how many of those
work for the New York Times?
Almost none. Because in any group of 60+ million people, almost none
will work for the New York Times. ’tis math.
Hegelian synthesis by eating Thai food and McDonald’s.
But McDonald’s in the US sucks compared to what I’ve had abroad so,
fuck, “foreign anything,” got me.
Chick-Fil-A is overrated, imo, and not because they donated to
anti-same-sex marriage orgs - which sucks, mind - but just boring
chicken sandwiches. Living in Austin, I’d rather go to Flyrite.
I was with him on the description of a lot of libs, (though the idea
that most teachers have degrees from Ivy League schools or Berkeley is
insane), but when he says that class is purely cultural and not about
how much money you have I just want to shake him.
I mean, you can (and I would) make a sort of Debordian argument that there is a spectacleized alternative class system that operates entirely on aesthetics, nearly but not completely divorced from the economic reality of class, which is used as a substitute for the discussion of actual class, but I don't think that's what Scotty's really going for here.
By Debordian, do you mean Freddie? I guess he deserves to be an adjective at this point.
Except Freddie is conscious of how insignificant and small this supposed class is. Even if we grant that the above discussion made by Scott is correct, he's maybe describing half a million people at the most who share most of these characteristics? A
By Debord I meant Guy Debord, I sort of invoked his concept of The Spectacle to get across how an all-consuming culture occluded material reality but is all we can really effect or talk about due to the very totalizing nature of the culture itself.
Oh that works. Or maybe Fredric Jamesian: his definition of postmodernism is the inversion of base and superstructure: when culture drives material reality and because nothing revolutionary can happen within superstructure, then it becomes just cycles of meaningless cultural consumption.
>but when he says that class is purely cultural
The other article he linked in the beginning with the disclaimer "read this first" was a review of a book that focused on class as a cultural thing which i think very much exists and what the linked article from him is based on. The term socioeconomic exists for a reason after all, he just focuses on the socio part.
I don't think he claimed that this is the only form of class but maybe i missed it.
It is absolutely a fact of the universe that an actual anti-Semite read Siskind's post above and found credence/reassurance/evidence for their views, particularly in the above excerpt.
We shitpost, but we can be honest about what is happening here. Indeed, the whole point is to lift the veil here.
1. I have a known aversion to people trying to litigate my mod decisions, in the sense that it fucks me off when people argue with me about those decisions, and that has always been the mod policy on here for all mods
2. You’re making a different point here than you are at the top: here you say anti-semites would take credence/reassurance/evidence from Siskind’s post(s), which I don’t doubt at all; at the top you strongly imply that Siskind’s intent is anti-semitic, which I very much doubt
3. There is also a fact of the universe that there exists a long and unpleasant history of people accusing Jewish people of anti-semitism which should be curtailed whenever possible
After reading this, I’m quite sure Scott has never watched more than 2 minutes of Fox News. And it may be possible that he’s never actually spoken to a Republican. Because this is the rising star of the party.
Doesn’t this dude try to be above tribes or whatever?
In addition to being very stupid about how politics works, this is not even mildly original or interesting or new. The Republicans have been playing the anti-elite card ever since Spiro Agnew. Scott seems to think this is a bold and daring new tactic when it’s been bog-standard for over 50 years.
I am once again baffled when I read sentences like this. Who in the DNC is openly talking about how cis white men are the enemy? How is Scott’s brain so fucking broken that he believes the Democratic Party is exclusively comprised of Tumblr posts he read in 2014?
He doesn’t realize how few people go to these colleges, does he.
Link to fell post
I’m continually amazed that people think Scott is a smart dude. As he demonstrates here, he is in fact very stupid.
I’m legit having an aneurism at “teachers are upper class and lumber barons are not”
Those are certainly some opinions. Yes sir, some definite opinions in there.
What does he think Kavanaugh was all about, if not a defense of cis white men?
So Scott’s a right-winger who’s never listened to Rush Limbaugh. Interesting.
There is a lot about Trump’s appeal that I’ll never get, but I also understand that some aspects of him are the result of marketing, and people fall for marketing all the damn time. He was never a good business man, and I knew that early on because generally if you’re good at business your stuff doesn’t end up all the time on the discount rack at Marshall’s (legit the only place I ever saw a Trump product). But some people clearly thought that The Apprentice was real, whatever.
What I will never, ever, ever fucking understand is this “Trump loves the little man and hates the elites that live in NYC”. TRUMP IS FROM NYC AND LIVES IN A BRASS COATED FANCY APARTMENT YOU ABSOLUTE FUCKING MORON! HIS ENTIRE SCHTICK HAS BEEN “LOOK AT ME BEING A FANCY NEW YORKER AND LIVING BETTER THAN YOU, AND HES BEEN DOING IT FOR ALMOST FORTY YEARS!
Can’t see him eating Ethiopian food though, on account of him having the food taste of a child, and being a racist shit.
This is a small point about this massive word dump, but uh, the thing about “politics is motivated by tribal hatred” is uh
I mean, maybe the guy is just a bad writer and is failing miserably to indicate that this is a local, highly specific phenomenon, but it sure sounds to me like he thinks he’s Cracked Some Code Of The Multiverse by generalizing from modern American politics. From a grand historical worldview, what this is describing is not “politics” in general, but politics gone very, very, very, very rancid.
Oh, and the other thing—hatred of the outsiders? You want someone whose entire fucking vision of politics is hatred of the Other? Let me introduce you to one Donald fucking Trump, who you, Mr. Siskind, might recall describing as “not a racist” and “not a fascist” in your past work.
Christ. This is like reading someone who’s tried to concoct an entire fucking theory of the entire goddamn world, based on their misinterpretation of 15 seconds of footage from a children’s TV show.
What gets me is that these people are supposed to be, well, rational. A sweeping baseless generalization is kinda the most basic irrational argument to use.
Do you? Seems weird to design your dream policy platform for people you hate. But maybe Scott’s just really friendly.
Thinking about inventing a new type of guy to get mad at on here… maybe a teacher who likes Ethiopian food and LGBT, idk
This reads like a caricature of how a liberal person thinks a conservative person would describe elites. Plus, his grouping of elites includes much of the middle class.
Also…
Almost none. Because in any group of 60+ million people, almost none will work for the New York Times. ’tis math.
Hegelian synthesis by eating Thai food and McDonald’s.
But McDonald’s in the US sucks compared to what I’ve had abroad so, fuck, “foreign anything,” got me.
Chick-Fil-A is overrated, imo, and not because they donated to anti-same-sex marriage orgs - which sucks, mind - but just boring chicken sandwiches. Living in Austin, I’d rather go to Flyrite.
Sounds like a twitter check mark hurt his fee-fees
I was with him on the description of a lot of libs, (though the idea that most teachers have degrees from Ivy League schools or Berkeley is insane), but when he says that class is purely cultural and not about how much money you have I just want to shake him.
That’s a whole lotta words when he really just means “Jew.”