r/SneerClub archives
newest
bestest
longest
Off to see the Wizards: Nazi radicalization features a LW -> SSC -> Sailer pathway (https://www.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/comments/ml2zya/off_to_see_the_wizards_nazi_radicalization/)
51

See here: https://marcusmann.net/post/radicalization/

Low n (44), but I felt as I read this that SSC would make an appearance! And it does, though only for one Nazi’s radicalization pathway. Interesting to see the process, hopefully more research like this comes out.

Interesting. I’d expect a larger dataset to show a Sargon/Sam Harris overlap, just going by my memories of what happened when atheist/skeptic communities started going off the edge.

The source for the data is an SPLC page that says, in part,

Respondents noted this kind of “race realism” — which relies on pseudoscientific evidence to argue that white people are a superior race — gave them a large push into the white nationalist camp. “If your prospect is an ‘objective’ type,” one forum member offered in a discussion of how to recruit others to their cause, “nothing beats race realism, and I’d say Jared Taylor and Alternative Hypothesis” — a “ human biodiversity” blog that argues race is genetically based — “are the most presentable, accessible, and pertinent in that field.” Another simply wrote, “Once I came across race realism it was over.” Indeed, Taylor is the second-most cited force for bringing people into the TRS/Daily Stormer network, with 20.3 percent of posters mentioning him.

“Human biodiversity” … very non-provably not-correct, amirite?

Do we have a standard resource that debunks it in this community? I know it's BS, but I don't have time to argue with people so having a good Link to yeet at them would be handy
[deleted]
Yeah, but I'd still like to be able to back up my ridicule for the good faith guys (mainly guys...) who are getting exposed to it for the first time and get suckered in
I think it’s far too vast a thing to have a standard resource; I’ve found over time that any attempt to debunk with citations is an open goal to have people attempt discrediting the source and harden themselves against any such debunking. Much better to put the effort in yourself and make your own arguments on your own grounds, that’s been at least marginally successful in my experience.
I will mention one specific use case for "debunking": when the thing being cited is so obviously awful that anyone using it deserves scorn and mockery for using it. I have had some limited success with this when talking about the really obviously awful IQ shit.
You don’t need to jargonise with “use case”, you can just say “There’s times it can be useful to [etc.]” Anyway Sure, if you’re talking to people getting *into* this bullshit, then fair, but there are cultures such as SSC where that’s more likely to promote pushback. If you search “enters the den” on this sub you’ll find an old thread from before I was banned from /r/SSC which is a pretty good demonstration of this problem. If you dig through the mess you’ll find that marginal benefit of argument I was talking about, from just the worst kind of people, that using your own words kind of works in a marginal way.
If you’re still after resources, /u/stairway-to-Kevin, also known as @itsberdemic on twitter is a one stop shop
I strive to provide quality farm-raised debunking and ridiculing, sometimes at the same time!
* @itsbirdemic
I know I've seen a thread, either here or somewhere else, with a bunch of resources and authors you can read to get brushed up on scientific anti-racism, but I'm having a bit of trouble finding it now. I'll keep poking around to see if I can find it.
Wikipedia is a [good counterweight](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_race_and_intelligence_controversy) to many of the touchpoints.
Is it? Just skimmed through that article. It doesn't seem very persuasive in either direction, imo. Most 'experts' at every stage seem to think genetics explain some of the IQ gap. How reliable these studies are is super debatable, not very reliable, but I don't see any strong case being made that genetics explaining group differences is pseudoscience. If anything, it seems like it's still considered an open question among people in the field.
That's exactly what I was thinking of - Scott frequently leaves breadcrumbs to HBD from the innocuous (frequent mentions of genes, each of which individually is fine) to the [not so innocuous](https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/26/the-atomic-bomb-considered-as-hungarian-high-school-science-fair-project/). The assumption of SneerClub, similar to my own, is that this is a path off to see the Wizards (to those unfamiliar, this is a Wizard of Oz pun, as the KKK uses 'Wizard' as a term for leader). Thankfully most don't go down the path, but it's useful to get some insight to who does, and how they get there. Hopefully we'll get that larger dataset someday.

via Steve Sailer, natch.

Yes, go on, please talk more about how one REDACTED proves that SSC is evil.

Steve Sailer has been approvingly featured frequently in the SSC world
Their unanimous esteem (or at best lack of criticism) for Sailer and "HBD Chick" was the first blazing red flag I noticed.
I actually got into a fight about causal inference with HBD Chick on twitter ages ago when I was a graduate student, about scientific ontologies, which was what I was studying at the time Fun link! https://mobile.twitter.com/GeorgeHemingto1/status/1026468503921065984
Please quote anyone in this thread who said SSC is "evil". It's a good idea to back up your statements with evidence.
I thought the accusation of "Nazi radicalization" for SSC was close enough to evil. Maybe not?
I try to be very careful with my words, and nobody here has called SSC 'evil'. Perhaps you're the kind of person who just uses words willy-nilly without thinking about what they mean, is that correct? Or did you genuinely think that someone here has called SSC 'evil' and this is a problem with your reading comprehension?
> I try to be very careful with my words Do you mean you try to “be precise in your speech”?
Marxist rules for life.
I hate this, thank you. Its upsetting mostly because I could see Marx saying it to Proudhon or something. Gonna replace all "bourguoise" with "chaos dragon" and see if I can finally make it through Capital
I often like SSC content that doesn't ascribe *social* phenomena to genes. Unfortunately, there's a decent amount of HBD breadcrumbs to be found. As an example, I think [this is actually a very useful SSC article](https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/05/08/varieties-of-argumentative-experience/) that I would send friends edit - so to be clear I don't think SSC is inherently **evil**
This post wasnt about Scott, also dont call him a moron, we dont use that language here.
I wasn't calling Scott a moron, but fine. Redacted.
Well surely you weren't referring to his prolific commenter Steve Sailer, because no one who talks about other people's IQs so much could be insecure about his own.
The people who frequent this sub have terrible reading comprehension.
My reading condescension is actually really good.
If that were true, then at least the sub would live up to its name. Instead, it's false advertising.
Lol