Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“A Statement with My View on Curtis Yarvin and Strange Loop”

s3.amazonaws.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 443 posts

Re: “A Statement with My View on Curtis Yarvin and Strange Loop”

#331

Post by tptacek »

paxdickinson wrote: post #327
tptacek wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't. The manner in which it was evoked in the above comment was rude and dismissive, and that's the problem. Incidentally, I'm irritated by Klabnik's politics. But I don't find them disqualifying. I am not so sure about Yarvin's. Can I reliably articulate why I think that's fair? No, I don't think so. And I can live with that.

"Which opinions are disqualifying and should be no platformed? Don't worry, I know them when I see them." That's comforting.

I understand what you're saying and I can live with your discomfort.

Re: “A Statement with My View on Curtis Yarvin and Strange Loop”

#332

Post by theorique »

cactusface wrote: post #244
tjradcliffe wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that no one in ordinary discourse uses "race" in the way you are, which means "species" (the whole not-interbreeding thing is often taken as definitive of "species".) "Race" as it is commonly used means "variety" or "breed", and the claim that there are observable and significant statistical differences between human populations in geographic regions is, one hopes, uncontroversial. Those differences come from…

Different races cannot interbreed, but only because they are geographically isolated. Different species cannot interbreed (generally speaking), even if they are not geographically isolated. Humans are not geographically isolated. Geographical barriers have contributed to the creation of population groups, but these are distinct from races in that there is a mechanism for DNA to move between them (somebody takes a tri…

"Scientific racism is the use of scientific techniques and hypotheses to support or justify the belief in racism, racial inferiority, or racial superiority, or alternatively the practice of classifying individuals of different phenotypes into discrete races."

The first three actions refer to value judgments ("better" / "worse" - compared to what? for what purpose?). Most people would agree that science should steer away from such judgments.

On the other hand, "classifying individuals of different phenotypes into discrete races" seems distinctly unproblematic. There are different clusters of genetic types that arose due to relative geographic isolation, and gave rise to various differences and adaptions. Obvious examples of these include skin color, hair color and texture, average height and build, and so forth. I did not realize that making this observation, in the absence of value judgments, was now interpreted as "scientific racism".

Re: “A Statement with My View on Curtis Yarvin and Strange Loop”

#333

Post by tptacek »

oldmanjay wrote: post #299
tptacek wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The term "politically correct" comes directly from the quote, as does African genetic predisposition for slavery. It's also not an isolated, out-of-context quote. For instance, it's easy to find Moldbug holding forth about the evils of South African apartheid abolition.

After reading the specific example given, I do have to qualify that as an out of context quote. The surrounding paragraphs make it clear he isn't targeting any one race in particular with the genetics business, just that the master-slave relationship occurs frequently enough and in enough forms that it seems to be fundamental to our nature as a people. I have a hard time finding that objectionable. You're heavily imp…

It might be out of context. All I can do is relate my opinions about the writing and the software. I could be wrong. I don't think I am, though.

Re: “A Statement with My View on Curtis Yarvin and Strange Loop”

#334

Post by yebyen »

tptacek wrote: post #331
paxdickinson wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Which opinions are disqualifying and should be no platformed? Don't worry, I know them when I see them." That's comforting.

I understand what you're saying and I can live with your discomfort.

I can live with his discomfort too (tbh), but the fact remains a lot of people are saying "Urbit is finished as a project after this" and they may be right; but even if Yarvin is a huge racist and deserves to be no-platformed (which, at least to my satisfaction, is not established), Urbit is now bigger than him, and it has been for near two years.

There are other contributors and they are tangibly harmed by this action, now and in the future. I think they will get over it. But I would guesstimate that overwhelmingly most of them are not interested in Moldbug or his politics, and they (we?) are also casualties of this shitstorm.

Please don't forget about it.

Re: “A Statement with My View on Curtis Yarvin and Strange Loop”

#335

Post by devalier »

tptacek wrote: post #329
devalier wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Carlyle's position on slavery is not compatible with your summary. Agreed. and, I'll trepidatiously infer, Yarvin's (after correcting for modernity) Since Yarvin is on this thread, he can clarify his actual views if he so wishes. I think it is possible to cite Carlyle, and to point out that Carlyle made better predictions than the abolitionists, without believing that all black people should be re-enslaved, without b…

Whatever else I think about the idea that Carlyle "made better predictions than the abolitionists", I think I can object that the problem doesn't stop at the approving references to Carlyle. For instance, Yarvin's "favorite primary source on slavery" is Nehemiah Adams, which he quotes in the most cryptic way possible, leaving out the fact that the book --- particularly in the context he cites it in --- is essentially…

I am familiar with the Nehemiah Adams reference.

Keep in mind that Moldbug's blog is trying to provide a corrective to our default view, and so Adam's account is his favorite, shock therapy, corrective book in a world where we are already marinated in the view that southern slavery was an unmitigated horror. In world where slave-holder ideology ran supreme, perhaps his favorite book might be something else.

The key question is: do we have a more accurate view of slavery if we include Nehemiah Adams and Genovese and the Roving Editor in addition to the standard progressive accounts? Or do we have a more accurate view if we only read the standard progressive accounts? Is Nehemiah so credulous, so inaccurate, that we get negative information value from reading him? Do we trust his account at all? Or was he duped like Beatrice Webb visiting the Soviet Union?

My own sense is that reading Adams in addition to progressive sources gives us a more accurate view of slavery in its totality. I don't get the sense that he his Beatrice Webb, he wasn't being given a tour by official handlers. But I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. I honestly do want to have an accurate picture of history, whatever that may be.

Re: “A Statement with My View on Curtis Yarvin and Strange Loop”

#336

Post by tptacek »

yebyen wrote: post #334
tptacek wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand what you're saying and I can live with your discomfort.

I can live with his discomfort too (tbh), but the fact remains a lot of people are saying "Urbit is finished as a project after this" and they may be right; but even if Yarvin is a huge racist and deserves to be no-platformed (which, at least to my satisfaction, is not established), Urbit is now bigger than him, and it has been for near two years. There are other contributors and they are tangibly harmed by this acti…

What does "no-platformed" mean? Invitation to a private conference is not like academic tenure. It's done at the pleasure of the conference organizers. This one chose not to open their venue to Yarvin. Even Yarvin doesn't seem too alarmed.

I think a lot of this is just people want their drama fix.

(There's a different pathology that makes me want to write about it. I'm aware, it doesn't need to be pointed out, but thanks in advance.)

Re: “A Statement with My View on Curtis Yarvin and Strange Loop”

#337

Post by yebyen »

tptacek wrote: post #330
lexcorvus wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have read it. I don't find "But Not NOT One, Either" to be an accurate characterization. Basically, Moldbug's position is that white nationalists include lots of vile racists, but that by itself doesn't mean they're wrong about everything, and we should evaluate such ideas critically if we want to actually solve the problems they identify (which in fact many progressives would identify as well, though the phrasing…

Your choices of what to quote are telling. For instance, one of those quotes is preceded by a lengthy (and thinly veiled) Derbyshire-esque description of black people as social ill. Shortly after it, we have these cheerful grafs: This is the trouble with white nationalism. It is strategically barren. It offers no effective political program. You can be as smart as you want and think about white nationalism forever, a…

It's important to consider the audience of this blog post.

Many of the readers may in fact be white nationalists looking to Moldbug for justification for their ideals, and I'd speculate the post is written how it is because it's just not helpful to tell them their concerns are flat-out invalid.

I am not here to defend this position, I am simply here to say I find it to be something other than indefensible.

Re: “A Statement with My View on Curtis Yarvin and Strange Loop”

#338

Post by tptacek »

yebyen wrote: post #337
tptacek wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your choices of what to quote are telling. For instance, one of those quotes is preceded by a lengthy (and thinly veiled) Derbyshire-esque description of black people as social ill. Shortly after it, we have these cheerful grafs: This is the trouble with white nationalism. It is strategically barren. It offers no effective political program. You can be as smart as you want and think about white nationalism forever, a…

It's important to consider the audience of this blog post. Many of the readers may in fact be white nationalists looking to Moldbug for justification for their ideals, and I'd speculate the post is written how it is because it's just not helpful to tell them their concerns are flat-out invalid. I am not here to defend this position, I am simply here to say I find it to be something other than indefensible.

If you read more broadly about "neo-reactionism", it's not hard to reach the conclusion that white supremacy --- or some intellectual abstraction isomorphic to it --- is one of its defining features. They're like the Non-Threatening Boys Magazine version of white power.

Re: “A Statement with My View on Curtis Yarvin and Strange Loop”

#339

Post by devalier »

tptacek wrote: post #330
lexcorvus wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have read it. I don't find "But Not NOT One, Either" to be an accurate characterization. Basically, Moldbug's position is that white nationalists include lots of vile racists, but that by itself doesn't mean they're wrong about everything, and we should evaluate such ideas critically if we want to actually solve the problems they identify (which in fact many progressives would identify as well, though the phrasing…

Your choices of what to quote are telling. For instance, one of those quotes is preceded by a lengthy (and thinly veiled) Derbyshire-esque description of black people as social ill. Shortly after it, we have these cheerful grafs: This is the trouble with white nationalism. It is strategically barren. It offers no effective political program. You can be as smart as you want and think about white nationalism forever, a…

"There's also the historical context of this post, which is William Saletan's idiotic Slate posts about rational IQ variation."

When I first read that Saletan post I found it pretty convincing. And when I did much more follow-up reading, reading lots of books and journal articles from all sides, it seemed like the preponderance of the evidence is on the side of there being significant ethnic based variation. For example - https://liberalbiorealism.wordpress.com/2009/10/07/the-likel... and his other posts, or https://jaymans.wordpress.com/jaymans-race-inheritance-and-i...

You seem like a smart and open minded person. Why did you find Saletan's posts idiotic? I'm genuinely interested in your opinion. Don't answer in this thread though, email me at the address in my profile. You're writing under your real name, and in the possibility that I convince you, I don't want you to get purged.

Re: “A Statement with My View on Curtis Yarvin and Strange Loop”

#340

Post by tptacek »

devalier wrote: post #335
tptacek wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whatever else I think about the idea that Carlyle "made better predictions than the abolitionists", I think I can object that the problem doesn't stop at the approving references to Carlyle. For instance, Yarvin's "favorite primary source on slavery" is Nehemiah Adams, which he quotes in the most cryptic way possible, leaving out the fact that the book --- particularly in the context he cites it in --- is essentially…

I am familiar with the Nehemiah Adams reference. Keep in mind that Moldbug's blog is trying to provide a corrective to our default view, and so Adam's account is his favorite, shock therapy, corrective book in a world where we are already marinated in the view that southern slavery was an unmitigated horror. In world where slave-holder ideology ran supreme, perhaps his favorite book might be something else. The key q…

I recoil from the idea that the view of southern slavery as unmitigated horror needs correction. Meanwhile, I don't have to defend every sentence in Nehemiah Adams, because the context in which Yarvin chose to cite him (approvingly, as one of his favorites) is as a rebuttal to the idea that slavery was harmful to blacks. If someone's being unfair to Adams in this situation, it's Yarvin.
Post reply on HN