Look if we are going Meta here, we as Rationalists should go full high decoupling. So let me fix that for you.
> maybe writing books couching political talking points in pseudoscience is leading to the downfall of society?
There made it political neutral (no I don't know what status quo means, I don't read french), and removed all proper context.
;)
Look comrades! See how they are unable to contextualise a learning environment without worship of capital? So much still stands before our revolutionary project.
What I noticed is they couch a lot of what they say in maybes and
could be, and so on. Pretending to be very careful and cautious. “I’m
just asking questions”.
When in fact all the stuff they are asking about is well known, and
they are stirring up uncertantity in very well settled science
areas.
Plus they have provided weird evopsych comfort to some very
problematic ideas. The latest I heard was “you should eat your ancestors
food because it’s in your genes now!”
Anyone think these two are totally liars and frauds? Or are they
‘well meaning’ but fucking clueless?
Absolute liars and frauds. They have a habit of turning every criticism or opposition to them as ideologically driven and designed to silence their brave truth telling
I absolutely love the posturing that it all is. You can do it for anything but the more ridiculous the better. Just 'ask questions' to raise doubt in what's commonly believed and then play up that your view, or even the discussion of it, is being silenced by media/tech companies/democrats/cancel culture/whoever. Obviously nobody was discussing it because it's some obviously ridiculous notion not worth discussing but your audience is already primed by censorship panic. The 'buzz' about the lack of discussion creates a demand for discussion. It's the same, if not similar, form of flat-earther rhetoric. To use the free market of ideas analogy, it's artificial demand.
> Anyone think these two are totally liars and frauds? Or are they 'well meaning' but fucking clueless?
Leaning toward the latter. I Don't Speak German has done a few podcasts on their awfulness.
The [*New York Times* website itself](https://www.nytimes.com/books/best-sellers/methodology/) explains it. And cases of gaming the list [aren't exactly obscure](https://lithub.com/8-notable-attempts-to-hack-the-new-york-times-bestseller-list/). For example, they include Don Jr.'s *[Triggered](https://heavy.com/news/2019/11/triggered-ny-times-bestseller-dagger-bulk-sales/)*.
The Hermitian adjoint, obviously
So cool that people always take the reasonable idea: “there may be unusual consequences to dramatically changing human lifestyles”
to mean: “racial segregation is actually good” and not stuff like
But as long as we’re cherry picking I’ll go with
A few months ago my mom sent me to their podcast…
What I noticed is they couch a lot of what they say in maybes and could be, and so on. Pretending to be very careful and cautious. “I’m just asking questions”.
When in fact all the stuff they are asking about is well known, and they are stirring up uncertantity in very well settled science areas.
Plus they have provided weird evopsych comfort to some very problematic ideas. The latest I heard was “you should eat your ancestors food because it’s in your genes now!”
Anyone think these two are totally liars and frauds? Or are they ‘well meaning’ but fucking clueless?
Isnt that dagger thing very well known?
tweet for context/credit
nonfiction*