i mean this is just stupid because you can think your ideology is
morally superior without thinking it makes you an inherently better
person for believing it right
He is 100% projecting. I know this because no matter the context, Paul Graham turns everything into a hierarchy-forming project where he always comes out at the top, and here he is just extending his normal mode of analysis.
His writings about programming are ultimately about how programmers that use his preferred language (Lisp) are superior to those who use others (Java). Almost all the blog posts he writes these days are about how great startup founders (and his in-groups in general) are; how intelligent, creative, free-thinking, and original people in his little club are. It shouldn't be a surprise that he probably views his political ideology in a similar manner, and in fact, from the little I've read of his book, this is actually he presents his libertarian views.
My guess is that he found himself thinking something along the lines of what he described in the tweet, and thought "how can I turn this around and attack others with this sentiment?".
the problem is paul's conflation of the ideology (e.g. I think socialism is good) with the people who believe in it (I think socialists are good)
i believe the first one but I know that there are plenty of socialists who are total shitheads
If only there were books written by socialists on how other socialists are shitheads, crancks of outright psychopaths! If only those books were not some of the best known pieces of socialist literature ever written! If only those books were inserted in a geek culture fanfic or a verbose review ny somebody who skimmed them, so that rationalists and techbros could read them!
That tweets is just a sly way to say “people with strong opinions on
controversial issues (read: the wokes) are committing the moral failing
of elitism”, which is, of course, assessing their moral worth based on
the ideas they hold. Which is what this tweet apparently criticized.
I think it is interesting how online discourse can lead to the
emergence of fairly sophisticated sophistry from relatively
unsophisticated debaters through continuous iteration. But it is empty
sophistry nonetheless.
> I think it is interesting how online discourse can lead to the emergence of fairly sophisticated sophistry from relatively unsophisticated debaters through continuous iteration. But it is empty sophistry nonetheless.
this is actually a description of all human knowledge
I mean, the important difference is that on Twitter it is done unconsciously, and that the output is just more sophisticated garbage rather than more refined knowledge.
If you (a) subscribe to an ideology that less than half the people
subscribe to and (b) consider anyone who subscribes to it as ipso facto
morally superior to anyone who doesn’t, then you automatically feel
yourself better than average, no matter what you’re actually like.
Thank you, magictheblathering, for voting on twitterStatus_Bot.
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/).
***
^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
Doubt that the guy who has spent the last two decades writing essays
about the virtues of being a startup founder or investor, or something,
isn’t an elitist himself.
It's ridiculous, isn't it. I have just posted something similar in response to another comment.. I don't see how he could have tweeted that with a straight face when many of his essays are practically extolling elitism. He's been writing for decades not just about the virtues of being a startup founder, but also of being a nerd, a Lisp programmer, a libertarian, and pretty much any topic he's dealt with ultimately ends with him patting himself on the back and feeling smugly superior.
Ive been receiving notifications for this sub for a few days, I read
a few posts, and I have no idea wtf you guys are talking about. Talking
shit about online atheists as if we were still in 2007 ? As far as Im
concerned, conspiracy theories took over and Im way more annoyed by
people who are proud to be irrational, than by people who pretend to be
rational but aren’t (no shit).
They seem to have started recommending stuff on the main page related to other sites you've looked at, not just things you're subscribed to. It's really irritating tbh. If you look at something in conspiracy to make sense of a top minds post you start getting the conspiracy arseholes being recommended to you.
Sorry about that, that sucks.
To explain a bit then, this sub is an offshoot of bad philosophy. We poke fun at or outright mock folks who align themselves with the so-called rationalists and rationalist movement; everyone has their own reason for doing so. There’s no big goal I think, we’re not going to convince anyone, it’s just the simple fun of reacting to bad content.
I know Im just questioning the point of it all. "Rationalists" are universally seen as lame nerds in society and I cant even count the memes making fun of neckbeards, "akchually" saying idiots and gatekeepers. In the late 2000s I agree the internet was a safe space for those lamos but nowadays, it's filled with religious people and conspiracy theorists, whom are way more dangerous, way more annoying and way more present on social media and who don't even try to be rational in any way shape or form. So why having a whole ass sub like this ?
[This might help](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/LessWrong), also considering Musk is LW adjacent, NRx is lesswrong adjacent, and Peter Thiel is also in this whole shit you are really wrong about your risk assessment here.
And well, there is the other thing, were we don't really think there is a good point. This is all a waste of time after all.
No one has ever heard of this group of shmucks (not you, LW huh) and mentioning it to prove a point is like mentioning the Bilderberg group to justify a conspiracy theory.
You would be suprised at how much money they get to do 'good things' (print harry potter fanfiction), and prevent the coming AGI (self aware AI) apocalypse.
I wrote an article a while back about how Dominic Cummings, then one of the most powerful people if not the most powerful person in government where I was born and live [the UK], was/is a big fan of LessWrong etc.
I’ve also been interviewed a couple of times over the phone by fairly big media outlets to talk about the subject
> Dominic Cummings, then one of the most powerful people if not the most powerful person in government where I was born and live [the UK], was/is a big fan of LessWrong etc.
Really? Yikes.
That's worse than the Objectivists in American... no wait, the wingnut faction of American politicos has given up Rand for Q, nevermind America is still nuttier.
I saw you mention it! I've been preparing an intervention just in case you get sucked in. I'm on the lookout for your economics posting beginning to lean more pro-Friedman. Out of love, poptart. Prospective kidnapping out of love.
I kind of love the reviews of this book, there are sober historians praising Sciabarra's compendious synthesis of all things Rand while charging him with overzealousness in exaggerating the influence of Lossky and Rand's philosophical education, other sober historians wondering why he's bothering this much with Rand, and apparently the Ayn Rand Institute judging that the biography is "postmodern and deconstructionist in its overall orientation, that it was one of the "worthless products" of contemporary academia, and that on the whole it was "preposterous in its thesis, destructive in its purpose, and tortuously numbing in its content."" That should go on the cover, what an advertisement.
Those were my exact thoughts when I bought the bugger: even as a curiosity it had to be worth a few quid?
On the *Ayn Rand Institute*, I think it’s interesting to mention that Leonard Peikoff is referenced early on, not disapprovingly, but is not present in the index. The explanation for this and their reaction may be found in the reason he is mentioned at all, as Peikoff is cited as a major doctrinal proponent of the view that Rand scholarship should not be viewed as ever extending beyond the exclusive writings and recordings of Rand herself.
Im not confused at all. I was responding to another user who mentioned it first. The worst part is that I got told to "read the rules", but there's no rules I can read on this sub lol ! Is everyone equally stupid on here or...?
Yes you are very confused, you have no idea where you are and what is going on and you are making kneejerk reactions to what you think is going on. And when you get corrected you ignore that. So no, we are not all equally stupid here. (hmm subtext).
Where did I get corrected ? For missing a pinned posts when most decent subreddits have rules displayed properly in a dedicated section ? Lol You guys are focalizing on rationalists the same way you criticize rationalists for focusing on religious people ! Its such a small community that I feel like no outsider (I mean by that someone who belongs to neither camps) got the chance to let you know that you sound just as ridiculous as any other community on the internet ganging up on individuals and making fun of them. Btw in terms of the "tone" of your messages (the sarcasm, the superiority complex etc) you guys sound JUST LIKE THEM.
> the same way you criticize rationalists for focusing on religious people
....?
It seems like you still don't understand what this sub is. That's fine. It's not for everyone.
> the "tone" of your messages (the sarcasm, the superiority complex
It's almost like we're *sneering*. Fancy that.
> Where did I get corrected
I corrected you by mentioning it is about Rationalists, not rationalists. And you still have not learned it. Hey guess what, I didn't just capitalize a word at random, it means things.
I also corrected you in that you are confused, even if you think you aren't.
> Is everyone equally stupid on here or...?
You're the one complaining to this subreddit about Reddit functionality as though we're responsible and owe you some kind of explanation.
i mean this is just stupid because you can think your ideology is morally superior without thinking it makes you an inherently better person for believing it right
That tweets is just a sly way to say “people with strong opinions on controversial issues (read: the wokes) are committing the moral failing of elitism”, which is, of course, assessing their moral worth based on the ideas they hold. Which is what this tweet apparently criticized.
I think it is interesting how online discourse can lead to the emergence of fairly sophisticated sophistry from relatively unsophisticated debaters through continuous iteration. But it is empty sophistry nonetheless.
If you (a) subscribe to an ideology that less than half the people subscribe to and (b) consider anyone who subscribes to it as ipso facto morally superior to anyone who doesn’t, then you automatically feel yourself better than average, no matter what you’re actually like.
posted by @paulg
^(If media is missing, please DM me with a link to submission url and tweet. I will do my best to solve the issue)
Doubt that the guy who has spent the last two decades writing essays about the virtues of being a startup founder or investor, or something, isn’t an elitist himself.
Your brain on the subscription model.
What a weird thing to say. You automatically feel a particular way, no matter your actual feelings. New flair, though.
Ive been receiving notifications for this sub for a few days, I read a few posts, and I have no idea wtf you guys are talking about. Talking shit about online atheists as if we were still in 2007 ? As far as Im concerned, conspiracy theories took over and Im way more annoyed by people who are proud to be irrational, than by people who pretend to be rational but aren’t (no shit).