Scoot’s latest post is mocking the very idea of justice, especially the newer variants like “climate justice”:
What is “climate justice”? Was the Little Ice Age unjust? What if it killed millions? Is it unjust for Mali to have a less pleasant climate than California? What if I said that there’s a really high correlation between temperature and GDP, and Mali’s awful climate is a big part of why it’s so poor? Climate justice couldn’t care less about any of this. Why not? Hard to say. Maybe because there’s no violation and no villain.
Ha ha, stupid SJWs, thinking that justice means something.
The thing is, in the very same article he links to the Wikipedia page on climate justice, which explains in perfectly plain language what it means:
Climate justice is a concept that addresses the just division, fair sharing, and equitable distribution of the benefits and burdens of climate change and responsibilities to deal with climate change…At its simplest, conceptions of climate justice can be grouped along the lines of procedural justice, which emphasizes fair, transparent and inclusive decision making, and distributive justice, which places the emphasis on who bears the costs of both climate change and the actions taken to address it.
Now, there is obviously plenty of room for legitimate differences of opinion on whether climate justice is a good idea or what should be done to achieve it. Note that Scott isn’t doing that, he’s just pretending not to understand the term and mocking it based on deliberate misinterpretation.
My favorite concept out of LessWrong is the idea of “steelmanning”, where you argue against the strongest possible version of your opponents argument. He’s doing the opposite of that, and not engaging honestly with the issues in the slightest.
My favorite concept out of LessWrong is the idea of “straw-steelmanning”, where you argue against the weakest possible version of your opponent’s argument, all while pretending you did your best to describe it in the most favorable light possible.
Hmm, that seems peculiar. Let’s dig in by clicking on those hyperlinks:
Okay then, so nothing to do with the physical laws that govern space.
And
Okay then, so nothing to do with the physical laws that govern time.
Personally, I think Scott is just dishonest.
Scott if he was writing this piece in 1780:
[deleted]
Yeah it’s weird but I’m actually disappointed that he’s basically abandoned the steel man concept. YMMV if he was ever really committed to it, but the basic idea of trying to understand your opponents’ ideas really is valuable as part of debate. But now he’s shrunk from that to the point where he won’t even learn the definitions of certain words or terms of they are used by people he doesn’t like. It’s a full retreat from even the facade of rational inquiry and a full embrace of Tucker Carlson style jeering.
I don’t know why I’m so disappointed by this. He was never particularly adept at getting into the minds of anyone other than conservative, upper middle class white guys living in the US to begin with. But this still feels degrading to watch even as someone who never really liked SSC et al.
Wow this is garbage even by Scott standards
I love how he himself acknowledges that there is a perfectly sensible framework in which “X justice” makes sense, but then decides because of his feelings that instead people using the phrase are stupid and sinister.
Mr. Rationality and Charity for you all.
Ah, RIP to the scott that was capable of at least reading opposing viewpoints. Climate justice super does care about Mali and other poor countries Scott, that’s the whole point of using the term! The idea is that climate action should take into account the material inequalities and injustices present in the world and not like, bulldose indigenous communities for lithium mines. And it’s just an objective fact that the worst brunt of climate change will be borne by the third world, while the first world has the highest per-capita emissions.
What part of that does he have an issue with? Who knows! Scott has evolved beyond the need for actual arguments. I can’t believe this man used to at least pretend to be rational.
Sadly, Racist Facebook Uncle Siskind is less sneer-worthy than, “I’m really very progressive but…” Siskind in days of old.
Legit amazing to just casually mention that you tried to find evidence for your beliefs and couldn’t… but it’s fine because you “just feel like” you’re right.
Fucking hell.
I think he has a point regarding weather and GDP. Many sunny climes suffer from low wealth because the British, insufferably miserable due to their own climate, sought out sunnier shores so that they could make other people even more miserable, but also get to wear khaki shorts.
Radical Marxists would say this is all about capital, resources and colonialisation as the foundation for contemporary economic power. But that viewpoint is irrelevant because they are radical Marxists. Obviously, it was because of the khaki shorts.
I always thought the people who turned “social justice warrior” into a slur were telling on themselves but leave it to Scott Whatever to actually come right out and prove it
this hot take is actually a reheat of an old Robin Hanson take “what about inequality across time huh” - I don’t know if Scoot went actively looking for old takes to reheat, but he did that