Slate Star Codex, the more contemporary bearer of the blog-torch for
the rationalist movement, features him prominently in their
Anti-Reactionary FAQ, which is designed to discourage further
crossbreeding of their ideas and his.
yeah, scott just hates it when his ideas and audience
overlaps with neo-reactionaries. totally not a thing he deliberately
tries to do using the anti-reactionary FAQ as plausible deniability
>using the anti-reactionary FAQ as plausible deniability
Not even that, more like a friendly disagreement on details so that he can sell himself as the more milquetoast version of the same thing. In the whole FAQ there is no critique of the reactionary view of gender roles, race relations, the alleged progressive dictatorship we live under and so on, only distancing himself from the parts of Moldbug so absurd that even a LessWrong reader could have problem taking them seriously (e.g. absolute monarchy, or putting poor people in pods)
Boy you seem to have a lot of thoughts on The Jews, please tell us, the sneering people, your thoughts on The Jews and how progressivism is murdering anglo culture.
The way they were tossing [Lilly’s] symbol around was likely a lot
different from what she and her sister, Lana, had in mind
…
“It’s a really resonant metaphor, and lines up easily with a
conservative worldview,” he says, because of how it can be presented as
a counter-truth to what might otherwise look like a losing battle in a
culture war.
What a stupid article… or maybe Straussian? Who is John Wilmes,
anyway?
Oh, he’s an English professor at something called “Roosevelt
University” who writes such literature as “Captain America’s Strange,
Time-Hopping Quest for Sexual Enlightenment”
One can read articles like this while preserving most of one’s brain
cells if one treats them as anthropological case studies of 110-IQ
college professors… or at least I hope so.
How about the “twisted, stolen legacy” of the original from Alice in
Wonderland, later used by Jefferson Airplane? Also, no one who uses
“whoop” when they mean kicking ass is credible. “Whoop” is what cowboys
do when they “whoop and holler”. What the writer means is “whup”, as in
“I got my ass whupped”.
ctrl+f “4chan”
no finds
wot.
yeah, scott just hates it when his ideas and audience overlaps with neo-reactionaries. totally not a thing he deliberately tries to do using the anti-reactionary FAQ as plausible deniability
…
What a stupid article… or maybe Straussian? Who is John Wilmes, anyway?
Oh, he’s an English professor at something called “Roosevelt University” who writes such literature as “Captain America’s Strange, Time-Hopping Quest for Sexual Enlightenment”
One can read articles like this while preserving most of one’s brain cells if one treats them as anthropological case studies of 110-IQ college professors… or at least I hope so.
How about the “twisted, stolen legacy” of the original from Alice in Wonderland, later used by Jefferson Airplane? Also, no one who uses “whoop” when they mean kicking ass is credible. “Whoop” is what cowboys do when they “whoop and holler”. What the writer means is “whup”, as in “I got my ass whupped”.