r/SneerClub archives
newest
bestest
longest
4

I would like to know, in good faith, how people who frequent this club think about and justify sneering as an activity.

Do you view it as a guilty pleasure, but not your best self? Or is it something that you fully endorse, such that you’d be able to calmly explain why it makes sense to someone willing to listen?

Edit: Downvotes ahoy xD

[deleted]

>That and it's a natural response to a space that puts such a premium on rules of decorum and dictation over real substance. It's the perfect fuck you response to an insistence on taking seriously the proposal to segregate the races because it was presented in neutral language. Just wanted to highlight this paragraph.

It’s a good thing to push back against fascists, racists, neoreactionaries. Since the rationalists are rife with those sorts, and the rationalist project actively lets those sorts fester and infect the community, the rationalist project must be pushed against. But, that’s not the same as needing to actually “debate” their points (indeed, the idea that each and every opinion is equally valid in the marketplace of ideas, and each idea must be heard and considered equally is exactly what lets the aforementioned racists, fascists, and neoreactionaries infect rationalism). I don’t need to debate Scott Alexander when he says that historic homophobia was justified because anal sex has a higher rate of spreading STDs. And what’s more, I shouldn’t give that sort of shit the time of day. What’s left, then, is the sneer. Let the world know that that sort of bullshit is unacceptable without legitimizing it as something worthy of discussion.

[deleted]
It's documented [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/comments/ll99n5/scott_siskind_admitted_fan_of_eugenics_and/gnpb83o/). The post as it stands states he deleted a controversial section that is "probably correct".
[deleted]
Scott has said in the past that he's more critical of progressive ideas because conservative ideas are just more obviously bad. Specifically, I believe that was his response to the backlash to his stupid "Trump isn't racist post", but I might be wrong there. Of course, the facade isn't nearly as good when we have him explicitly saying he wants to smuggle neoreactionary views into his blog and posting shit like "my super conservative friend said some heinous shit that I totally agree with"
The are some rationalists who know how to actually think, reason, and use logics. Most of them don’t, but think that their ability to use big words (that they often don’t understand), or cite research (that they don’t actually read or understand) and recognize the canonical list of logical fallacies they learned in junior high school means they’re rational. Most of them are actually simply contrarians. They believe what they believe because the normies don’t. They actually change their views once the political opinions start to form a consensus that they agree with.
This statement by Scott is very good. Every prejudice has a real reason to exist and we would be extinct without them.

how people who frequent this club think about and justify sneering as an activity

well, it’s simple.
there’s a type of person whose self worth is based on the false notion of being smarter than everyone else. they portage this self image into groups that they perceive to be smart (the rationalists are the perfect group for this, as they have a much lower barrier to entry than other groups and are chock full of people who are socially inept enough to be happy telling everyone about how high their iq is) where they then defend all their garbage takes because if they’re wrong, then it means they’re not as smart as everyone else (and if they’re right, they’re smarter!).

you end up with a community of people who do that constantly, just shit out whatever hot garbage hits their brainball and defend it to the death. there is no way to communicate to them that the crap they care about doesn’t matter and in fact, you can be a total dunce and still have a massive positive impact in the world, or that self worth need not be tied to how clever you are, etc.

there’s only one thing the ego obsessed will pay any heed to: sneers.

or maybe this is all just a big brain hot take i posted as a post-hoc way to validate my actions and nothing you can say in polite discourse will discourage me because my self identity depends on it. who’s to say?

Interesting reply

I cannot speak for anybody else, but for me is 80% fun, since online rationalism has that mix of “i’m 14 I never studied the subject seriously and it’s deep” and self assurance that makes mocking them so juicy.

A good 15% is somehow educational: these people are out there, and albeit indirectly they have contributed to the cultural milieu that culminated in the alt-right setting the tune of the GOP, Tucker Carlson being allowed to talk like that on national TV instead than in gas station bar, and techbros talking like Andrew Ryan from Bioshock (with some skull measurement added for right measure) unironically. The consequences of all of this are already very very tangible, but what happens now is only an homeopathic dose of the worst case scenario. Knowing that, how these people think and proselytize, and ideally how to stop the contagion, is somehow useful. It’s a bit like watching “the alt-right playbook” by Ian Danskin, let’s say

Finally, 5% is understanding the hidden structure of the conservative (mainstream conservative, who has never heard about Moldbug or Siskind) brain. In their overthinking and overanalysing, rationalists or neoreactionary bloggers often come up with the 90% pure, deluxe, right from Colombia version of something that in a muddier and milder version inhabits any conservative’s mind. So there is the bonus of also having some insights on the conservative implicit and often unconscious worldview in general

[deleted]

Hi I'm here because Sneerclub is the one fucking place that supported me when I came out about my abuse at the hands of LW and didn't expect anything in return Also because PopTart is my fave. :3
Love you too bb

[deleted]

That last line is a doozy, thankyou. I shouldn't be so hard on myself.
> "Guilty pleasure" is a concept for people who, at some level, don't like themselves. I like myself so...🤷‍♂️ This is useful, I'll steal it

Unironically thank you for this thread. Can we link it in the subreddit sidebar/description as an FAQ?

Also unironically: When people ask “Why do X?” they usually mean “instead of Y”, even if they casually omit Y. In this case Y is “have a polite, enlightening exchange of views” and the answer is “it took me far too long to realize that that’s basically impossible on Reddit.” At best you get an extremely topic-focused credentialized forum like r/AskHistorians or a heavily-moderated-yet-still-full-of-bad-faith mishmash like r/NeutralPolitics or r/ChangeMyView. Otherwise, if you wander into a virtual room full of a hundred young white men and try to discuss big issues like race and gender, regardless of any made-up rules about civility or sourcing, it’s not very likely you’ll walk out of there more enlightened. Probably less. Same as if you walked into a room full of random Chinese people discussing American foreign policy or a room full of laypeople discussing vaccines. The pseudonymy makes it hard to tell who has any idea what they’re talking about and the agreevote system guarantees only that minority views will be silenced, not that the most insightful or rational or evidence-based views will be amplified.

So this is just Reddit being used for what it’s good for.

Super interesting (unironically!)

The sneer that can be told is not the eternal sneer. TheMotte that can be named is not the eternal motte. The irrational is the beginning of Cathedral and Sneerclub. The rational is the mother of ten thousand blog posts.

Quality content like this is why I don’t mind the “Just Asking Questions” posts.
I’m impressed by your fancy way to dodge simple questions, if that helps.
You are being sneered at. It's a demonstrative lesson.
Ah. Well, carry on.

[deleted]

Yeah, that makes sense to me. I think it’s important to pushback and find likeminded people to converse with.

[deleted]

Have you thought much about the idea that sneering makes you an unpleasant person? It’s not an idea I endorse, but it does point towards a direction of ‘being a better person’, and whilst I don’t think the choices in one’s mind are anything like that simple, it seems to me there should be _some_ way of getting that value.
> Have you thought much about the idea that sneering makes you an unpleasant person? So many assumptions baked into this question...
Lay 'em on me, I'd be happy to learn. I meant to reference the folk arguments against unpleasantness.
Is mocking people who are being both ridiculous and harmful "unpleasant", and if it is, is that bad? Is being "pleasant" to or about them better? If so, why? Is there anything more important than being "pleasant" to everyone regardless of what they say or do that might make being unpleasant a good thing? Personally I think there is.
\> Is mocking people who are being both ridiculous and harmful "unpleasant", and if it is, is that bad? Nope, I fully agree. I like 'mocking' and 'making fun of'. Especially as disagreement. \> Is being "pleasant" to or about them better? If so, why? Do you mean other things being equal? Other things being equal is the case in which it seems to me that positivity is an underrated good. But certainly it's not the case that "unpleasantness = bad = always a mistake". To me it's more than there are marginal questions, and there are also non-marginal arguments against the practice of attempting to fill up the internet with negativity. \> Is there anything more important than being "pleasant" to everyone regardless of what they say or do? Certainly, clearly, yes. I'm puzzled that you ask — this seems quite far from my OP?
> I'm puzzled that you ask No you aren't. You clearly disapprove of this sub's "unpleasant" behavior, and I'm pointing out that *you* should examine whether *your* disapproval is justified. Stop hiding your true thoughts and feelings behind a veneer of detached sophistication. The fact that you're doing so shows where you overlap with the targets of this sub's mockery. Just say what you think instead of pretending that you have no opinions.
I'm saying exactly what I think. Yes, I side towards the view r/sneerclub is being more unpleasant than it needs to be, but I'm not certain on that point, so I want to ask questions. Why is that hard to believe, I genuinely don't get it? If people here were rationalists-turned-sneerers, i.e. people who changed their mind, wouldn't you expect to find people with intermediate views? Also, did you want to discuss your questions further, or not? You were asking interesting questions, so if you're satisfied, perhaps we could steer off your crazy tangent.
> Why is that hard to believe, I genuinely don't get it? Liar. >Also, did you want to discuss your questions further, or not? No. They're for you to think about. I have answers to my own satisfaction. Come back when you're ready to be honest and say things rather than "just ask questions".
Then I hope you and your ignorance are happy together. You deserve each other.
There we go! Now you're starting to be honest! You were never fooling anyone, by the way.
Er, hello. Same person, here! Edit: By "your ignorance", I was referring to your ignorance of whether or not I was lying. :)
>your ignorance of whether or not I was lying. It's really amusing that your response to being directly called out as being bad at hiding your real thoughts and feelings is "nuh-uh, I'm hiding really well and you don't see me."
Sorry. How's this. >as being bad You got me!!
cringe
Making fun of fascists is good, actually
the kind of person who thinks that saying rationalists are bad and stupid and wrong makes me unpleasant is the kind of person i do not want in my life
>Have you thought much about the idea that sneering makes you an unpleasant person? Yes. It's bullshit, sneering at polite Nazis and bullshit makes you a pleasant person to anyone except the bullshitter/Nazi. And while I might sometimes feel like engaging with someone who has demonstrated good faith, this place exists for reacting to the people that *repeatedly, reliably*, **don't**
[deleted]
Jesus this post has triggered a lot of commentary here
[deleted]
Is "Have you thought about being more of a judgemental bitch" your barometer for "discussion"? Honestly dude
[deleted]
wow bud ya really got me
[deleted]
Let me take that a little further. If I assault someone at random on the street, net assaults in your country don't change much. The only way the net assaults changes is for mass effects, like if everyone stops. Isn't that irrelevant to whether the assault is justified? I picked a harsh example not to make fun of your point; I do see disanalogies. For example assaults probably beget assaults, whereas it might be the case that removing internet toxicity somewhere causes more of it elsewhere. What do you think?
[deleted]
I mean there are many ways they aren't the same. That's the point of an analogy rather than saying "This is exactly the same as".
[deleted]
Pretty good outcome considering

Don’t worry, a text post cant be downvoted to below zero, and as such these are not utilitarian points that will be tallied up when you are finally judged before the acausalrobotgod.

E: on topic, well, it has always been the prerogative of fools and children to point out the emperor is wearing no clothes.

OP should consider that downvoting inconvenient truths causes discomfit in the downvoters brain and the acausalrobotgod may not look too kindly on someone spreading that sort of eye dust around.

Some ideas are so stupid and bad they don’t deserve serious engagement and communities who regularly support these ideas and are unwilling or unable to discern good from bad ideas deserve ridicule and social estrangement

Why can't those people be all wrong on their lonesome? Is it because if they'll hurt people if left unchecked? Or something like needing to hurt them in order to reverse the political/social power they have?
> Why can't those people be all wrong on their lonesome? You can apply this to your impulse to make this post. You appear to disagree with what this sub does, and feel a need to respond to that. Can't sneerclub be all wrong on their lonesome?
I would agree, and call my argument hypocritical, if I wrote this post to prove a point. I wrote it to talk about the subject matter with others so I could learn — and I succeeded at that. Either way, even if I am — alleging hypocrisy isn't an answer to my question.
> alleging hypocrisy isn't an answer to my question And whining about leaving people alone isn't a response to "bad ideas deserve ridicule and social estrangement", which *was* an answer to your question. You got a response and both didn't like it and didn't honestly engage with it, while also being a hypocrite. You get what you get. You want an honest discussion? Start discussing.
Why do you think they're being wrong on their lonesome? They're using their platforms and their communities to spread racist, sexist, homophobic, and generally reactionary ideas, or they grift money for inane doomsday cult nonsense. (See: Scott Alexander, Scott Aaronson, Yud, Aella, Gwern, and a host of other shithead rationalist leaders). The question is not "why can't you meanies just leave them alone", but how can *you* look at these people and their constant shittiness, look at the community that supports and enables them, and then decide that the interesting question is how could we be so unpleasant as to mock them?
Hmmm... The vast majority of my time I spend in rationalist-adjacent places, I spend criticising bad rationalist ideas. On the occasion I dip in here under my 'unrestrained/free commenting' reddit alt, you ask why I spend my time critiquing sneerclub. Do I have that right?
You're ignoring everything that mattered in their post: >They're using their platforms and their communities to spread racist, sexist, homophobic, and generally reactionary ideas, or they grift money for inane doomsday cult nonsense. (See: Scott Alexander, Scott Aaronson, Yud, Aella, Gwern, and a host of other shithead rationalist leaders). I'll repeat their question myself too. How can you look at these people and their constant shittiness, look at the community that supports and enables them, and then decide that the interesting question is how could we be so unpleasant as to mock them?
You need to read my comment again. I directly responded to your question.
You did not. Stop being a moral coward and *say something*: #They're using their platforms and their communities to spread racist, sexist, homophobic, and generally reactionary ideas, or they grift money for inane doomsday cult nonsense. Stop ignoring that. *Respond to it.* And this bit of yours: >Do I have that right? "It's not illegal to do what I'm doing" might be the most disgraceful excuse you could ever make for yourself.
:)
"Good faith", eh?
I choose which comments I reply to, and I make a point of not replying to comportations yelled in large fonts demanding I reply. Besides, my response from earlier stands. What do you want me to do, repeat it every other comment on a long thread with you? Bore.
> Besides, my response from earlier stands. Your non-response. Do you agree with their characterization? If you don't, well, you'd better justify yourself. And if you *do* agree with their characterization, how can you justify *not* understanding the need for opposing it?
Large fonts do not "yell".
> The vast majority of my time I spend in rationalist-adjacent places, I spend criticising bad rationalist ideas. Hmm. You'd think this would provide a very convincing answer to the question, "Why do you sneer?" Have things gotten better because you criticized those bad ideas? Because I can say with some certainty that rationalist subreddits still pretty consistently take the most racist, fascist, monstrous shit very seriously. These are people who won't blink when someone cites Richard Lynn's obviously bullshit race data, but who will throw a shitfit if you point out that said data is obviously racist bullshit. Does the criticism actually make it betteR?
No, you seem to have missed my point. I said, given how immediately and self-evidently awful the rationalist community is, how do you look at a community dedicated to mocking that and go "how could they possibly justify mocking these awful people?" If you spend all your time critiquing bad rationalist ideas, then it should be immediately apparent how we justify being so unpleasant towards them. It's not an interesting question. (Hint: it's the racism, the homophobia, the sexism, the neoreaction, etc.). Again, if you're really spending all your time critiquing bad rationalist ideas, this should be clear. But, it's seemingly not clear. You come here, even in good faith, to try and figure out how we could possibly justify it to ourselves. The point of my comment was to gesture towards you as a person. What does it say about your biases and tolerances that you look at (to focus on one facet of the conflict) a bunch of people saying racist things and a bunch of people saying "fuck off racists". You go "Ah yes, I've had to get on to those guys for being racist before, but what's up with the other group telling them to fuck off? Why are they so unpleasant to the racists?"
You're picking a particular topic I don't know much about, because I haven't followed those links. So are you saying race is the main crux of what justifies the sneering?
As I specified in my comment I picked racism "to focus on one facet of the conflict". Racism is just, you know, one facet of why we sneer. I've stated repeatedly that racism, sexism, homophobia, general neoreactionism all play a role. I've stated all this several times using this exact language. Are you not reading my comments? If you spend most your time critiquing bad rationalist ideas, though, I'd really expect you to be more knowledgeable about the bad rationalist ideas. Perhaps you'd be better served by reading some of the past threads on the sub, or some of the threads linked elsewhere in this very thread. Or you could even spend more time casting a critical eye on rationalist spaces with huge racism problems, like /r/themotte or the comments of Scott Alexander's blog, since you say you're unfamiliar with racism in the rationalist community.
Speaking as someone who was never directly involved with rationalist communities, but was curious at one point and knew people on the periphery, reading this sub has been extremely enlightening. It helped me put my finger on a lot of the uncomfortable feelings I got from certain blogs I was recommended and learning about the history and associations of the community confirmed for me that it is not something I'd ever wish to be a part of.
Yeah, that makes sense to me! The reason I made this thread is that I wonder whether there are other ways to achieve the same effect, which are superior by virtue of not including nastiness. Not that every post on this sub is nasty — certainly not — but some are. Of course there is the effect that outrage causes more engagement, causing the sub to grow, and it to be more successful at that goal. That's a clear virtue of outrage.
As /u/stairway-to-kevin has pointed out to me privately, at least one very influential person in the hellscape of online rationalism has been for years now posing as a respected economist commenting with statistical nous on why black people are genetically stupid The depths of this go very fucking deep indeed: you sneer at them because insolence is the only response to that level of insolence, such people are not worthy of respect or even recognition - unless of course sneering is a form of recognition which abjures respect I may be a bit grumpy because I have to at some point tonight pack up my things and clean the apartment I’m renting but the point stands that thieves and liars are two different things: I can sympathise with thieves, liars in the pointless service of scientific racism on the other hand are in the words of Nye Bevan “lower than vermin”

Really?

I will sneer at a community that considers me and others genetically inferior, or abides by those who do because they don’t use mean words.

I will sneer at a bunch of edgelords who never emotionally left high school, who think academic rigour is wanking with a thesaurus and citing a shitty blog.

I will sneer at a group with such megalomania that they think this small, highly verbose and low traffic shitposting forum is some kind terrifying boogeyman that never sleeps.

It’s not just incredibly funny, it’s also extremely time efficient. My actual guilty pleasure is corny medical dramas.

Garth Marenghi's Darkplace but rationalist. Hm.

[deleted]

The wrong flair at first?
More likely one of my “colleagues” so to speak was bored with whatever arguments flared up in the comments while I was napping Over 50 comments in one hour on a post downvoted to zero is pretty unusual for this sub Moreover we have a policy of soft-discouraging “why are you guys like this” posts on /r/SneerClub due in part to the mass of trolls from the so to speak “Other Side” who come into the sub to make them just to start a fight, and due in part to the unnecessary animosity of genuinely upset people from that side who think we’re the rationalist equivalent of kiwi farms (we are not)
Heh. Gotcha. Thanks that makes sense.

“Wovon man nicht sneeren kann, darüber muß man schweigen.”

There are no reasons, just excuses, and rationalism is one big pile of looking for the perfect excuse to never grow up. Well worth making fun of.

If you have to tell people you’re acting in good faith, you’re not acting in good faith.

If you can’t understand why people sneer at Rationalist (so called) nonsense rather than engage with it seriously, I’d encourage you to read some Sartre.

I didn't have to say "good faith". I figured many people would think I was bad faith either way, whether I said it or not. I decided to include it because it's true.
A good-faith version of this would be something like “Why sneer? Why not engage? Why not ignore?” Instead, your very first question—after proclaiming your honesty—presupposes sneering (which here I define as “mocking mask-on racists, Fascists, and fellow travelers when said mask slips”) as being something bad. If you really are asking in good faith, which I doubt, here’s the good faith answer: Someone who tries to cloak their racism, Fascism, etc. with anodyne euphemisms like “human biodiversity” doesn’t deserve to be engaged seriously as they believe hateful nonsense. They also shouldn’t be ignored because that risks letting said hateful nonsense spread. I sneer *pour encourager les autres*. Ooh, that should be the sub’s motto!
Yes, those are questions I had in mind. I just directly asked the thing without super-caring about being misinterpreted. Thx for the reply.

(Repeating a comment I made a few months ago on a dead thread)

For me there are several reasons:

*I live not too far away from ground zero (Silicon Valley) and it’s curious/fun/interesting to hear about oddities of semi-local culture.

*I work in academic research. In my field it would be ludicrous to think one could just noodle up all of physics/astronomy/geology/etc out of one’s own brain-musings rather than trying to master whatever necessary slice of the enormous literature of experiments and theory that exist for any of these fields.

*Notwithstanding that , I am a relatively uncritical person when it comes to assessing people’s takes and their thinking. It is easy for me to take people at their word (“but I’m a liberal!”). It’s helpful for me to see the dissections of the bad faith of the various targets, I admire the critical skills of the posters here and try to take it on board.

i like that you are so afraid of us u made a new account to post your definitely good faith question. we are p terrifying

There are people who will ask you questions in good faith, and there are people who will lie. Assume the worst if you’re too socially damaged to do anything else, but don’t pretend you have a way of distinguishing between the two when you don’t.

Not all of us have easy access to rationalists and a locker.

I would like to know, in good faith

Oh. It’s another one of these.

I am personally against the SneerClub, their priors are all wrong, they all do bad on prediction markets, I recommend people read “Adumbrations Of Aducanumab”, “Control Group is out of control” and the “Mantic Monday” sequence. Really explains everything. Sprinkle in some google trends graphs and “untitled” (EDIT: I had to delete everything I wrote about this, post exceeded limit) you get the picture.

I Believe:

TL;DR: P(A|B) = [P(A)*P(B|A)]/P(B), all the rest is commentary.

I think this video essay really explains my outlook on it https://youtu.be/o2Is1oTUPHE

peer reviewed

post hog

ergo propter hog

Please mark NSFW according to sub rules

Thx

Because a lot of these ideas are so inane and ridiculous that offering further rebuttal than a sneer is putting in more work than is justifiable.

I think one of our great philosophers said it best

have you ever heard of punching up?

jesus fucking christ

:(

It’s that feeling from that Leonardo di Caprio gif from Django Unchained.

how people who frequent this club think about and justify sneering as an activity

i come here to read something while/instead of working when i’ve got nothing better to read

wouldn’t know about the other weirdos though

It might not show up directly if you search for it, but you night find the discussions in this thread interesting to understand people here. Also features old time ssc interesting poster yodatsracist, who left ssc a long time ago and explained why he left.