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

Two Kinds of Freedom of Speech (or Strangeloop vs. Curtis Yarvin)

popehat.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 194 posts

Re: Two Kinds of Freedom of Speech (or Strangeloop vs. Curtis Yarvin)

#151

Post by hga »

sudioStudio64 wrote: post #147
hga wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's emphasize, that was printed on "9/11", with a photo of Ayers standing on an American flag....

He didn't know that 9/11 was going to be 9/11 though...It's dickish, but it was planned to coincide or anything.

Indeed, but I believe the unfortunate timing makes the lack of reaction to this article even more of interest. Juxtapose that with the leaders of our ruling class singing the very militant Battle Hymn of the Republic in the National Cathedral five days later (http://www.mrrhoads.com/national-cathedral-dc-battle-hymn-of...)....

Re: Two Kinds of Freedom of Speech (or Strangeloop vs. Curtis Yarvin)

#152

Post by theorique »

hga wrote: post #138
theorique wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Extreme conservative opinions like Mr Yarvins are actually shocking to me. I don't think his particular writings should be banned or anything like that. However, are they so reactionary as to represent to the organizers a position that they don't want to even tacitly or obliquely endorse? Given that the reaction of the organizers was to remove Yarvin's talk, with extremely vague justifications, I think both sides cou…

But didn't Alex Miller make it clear he knew nothing about Yarvin's politics, that he was exercising a Heckler's Veto due to the people who were protesting Yarvin's politics? As has been noted by others, this could be interpreted as the latter issuing a "Nice conference and career you have there, it would be a shame if anything happened to them". A political interpretation, yes, but one of pure power politics, vs. an…

You're right. Since CY/MM was unknown to the organizers, it was not that the organizers believed he was beyond the limits of civilized discourse.

Rather, the "hecklers" who advised the organizers to drop CY/MM were the ones who held this belief.

Re: Two Kinds of Freedom of Speech (or Strangeloop vs. Curtis Yarvin)

#153

Post by amcastillo »

sdfghjkl34567 wrote: post #140
mindslight wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You came up with that specific hypothetical and it inherently carries your framework. It is set up as a zero sum interaction where everyone needs to be brought down rather than lifted up. But fighting injustice with more injustice is a race to the bottom. By your usage, I presume you're using definition #1 of http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascist even though you are not capitalizing it. If it is possible…

Dictionaries are descriptions, not proscriptions, of words. I'm not "using" any definition of fascism other than the one I've built up in my own mind based on my own lived experiences. I'm not going to be questioned on a dictionary. It is true that all exercises of political power are at the end of the day coercive. My personal take on this is to minimize political power, but to do this takes a specific social arrang…

>Do you notice the contradiction?

No. Distributivism comes to mind.

Re: Two Kinds of Freedom of Speech (or Strangeloop vs. Curtis Yarvin)

#154

Post by amcastillo »

davidgerard wrote: post #37
Kelly2 wrote: post #29

To play devil's advocate, a conference is not only about the speeches, but also about the people you can meet there. Inviting Moldbug bring not only his own person but also his followers. It's understandable if your goal is to foster a diverse crowd to not invite a group of people who constantly argue against any kind of modern society.

To be fair, neoreactionaries are mostly notable for their startling lack of real-world achievements. Yarvin is exceptional in this regard. (Tunney has disclaimed "neoreaction" of late.) They tend to have extensive blogging credentials, however. (And are a dab hand with an occasional cheese dip.) edit: if there are others with notable real-world achievements, I will eagerly accept correction.

A lot of people who blog on these ideas maintain pseudonyms to prevent Strangeloop-like witch hunts ruining their professional lives.

Neoreactionary ideas have been picked up and directly cited by cultural influencers like Ross Douthat, Ed West, and William Gibson, however. They see themselves as a right wing Frankfurt School - not noteworthy for their identities, but for their subtle cultural impact.

Re: Two Kinds of Freedom of Speech (or Strangeloop vs. Curtis Yarvin)

#155

Post by amcastillo »

sdfghjkl34567 wrote: post #144
hga wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmmm, I wasn't thinking of sdfghjkl34567 and company as cowards, but now that you mention the possibility, maybe it isn't a coincidence that the calm events (not protests and marches) they brought baseball bats (and hammers) to in the US, at least per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Racist_Action#History were in states where their targets couldn't legally carry guns. It would be interesting to check with Google to…

The wikipedia history for ARA itself is a pretty reductive list of actions compared to all ARA-aligned actions. Again, I mentioned ARA because they popularized the tactic of shutting down meetings by pressuring hotels (which is not to say they invented secondary target activism), not because it was the only group doing so or for any other specific reason. Anti-racist and anti-fascist organizing happens under the mant…

> Anti-racist and anti-fascist organizing happens under the mantle of a thousand different groups all over the world.

And yet we are asked to believe that an obscure blogger flirting with monarchist political thought would introduce a dangerous authoritarian element if allowed to present on a technical topic. Thanks for putting this into context.

Re: Two Kinds of Freedom of Speech (or Strangeloop vs. Curtis Yarvin)

#156

Post by amcastillo »

davidgerard wrote: post #33
amcastillo wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks like this person edited their comment. Anyway, you're right, Noah Smith is one of the less objective filters you could seek to fairly summarize a right-of-left-of-center viewpoint. Read Moldbug, people.

Life is far too short to actually read Moldbug. The man seriously does not state his thesis until at least 1000 words in (I am not exaggerating).

De gustibus non est disputandum :)

Life is too short to do a lot of silly things like veg on junk TV or fart around on Twitter or read the entire Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality all day yet I admit that I sometimes persist.

Moldbug is a strange and fascinating bird that is not immediately meant to be understood, but experienced. There really is no one else like him. For those with a taste for the antiquated charm of letters filtered for the post-post-modern generation, he writes entertaining and challenging essays that lets us peek behind the lacquered veneer of modern society to get a feel for what it is that we don't realize we have forgotten. He is certainly not for everyone, but a "fascist racist sexist anti-Christ" he is decidedly not.

Re: Two Kinds of Freedom of Speech (or Strangeloop vs. Curtis Yarvin)

#157

Post by amcastillo »

tjradcliffe wrote: post #26
amcastillo wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I'll tack on a mention of an explanation of Moldbug and his movement from the perspective of an economish blogger Andrea Castillo. AKA me. https://theumlaut.com/2014/07/29/a-gentle-introduction-to-ne...

The neoreactionaries aren't interested in the Enlightenment as a set of fundamental ideas, but as a time in history they find congenial: after the scientific revolution, before democratic, industrial capitalism steamrolled the aristocracy. They are like an alternative version of the Society for Creative Anachronism, re-imagining the Enlightenment historical period in ways that leave out the things they find icky but…

Most neoreactionaries I know don't care much for the Enlightenment at all. Some pine for monarchy, others for Skynet, still more for the farm. A difficult bunch to generalize, united only by their shared (but uneven) disdain for democracy, (post-)modernism, and egalitarianism.

Re: Two Kinds of Freedom of Speech (or Strangeloop vs. Curtis Yarvin)

#158

Post by mindslight »

sdfghjkl34567 wrote: post #140
mindslight wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You came up with that specific hypothetical and it inherently carries your framework. It is set up as a zero sum interaction where everyone needs to be brought down rather than lifted up. But fighting injustice with more injustice is a race to the bottom. By your usage, I presume you're using definition #1 of http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascist even though you are not capitalizing it. If it is possible…

Dictionaries are descriptions, not proscriptions, of words. I'm not "using" any definition of fascism other than the one I've built up in my own mind based on my own lived experiences. I'm not going to be questioned on a dictionary. It is true that all exercises of political power are at the end of the day coercive. My personal take on this is to minimize political power, but to do this takes a specific social arrang…

If your definition differs, please describe it. Sharing definitions is necessary to communicate, as opposed to simply lobbing feels back and forth.

> My personal take on this is to minimize political power, but to do this takes a specific social arrangement that doesn't exist in the present day.

So in the mean time, you switch to maximizing political power? Why exactly do you think this would end any differently than it has in the past - simply empowering new autocrats borne by new religions?

> But then, I also care much less about any concept of "justice."

How can you propose to have a society without justice? When people feel wronged, their desire is to get greater revenge. Without moderating this force, feuds grow ever larger.

It seems as if you're envisioning a magic society where everybody just "gets it" and nobody transgresses against one another. And since you can never have that (there will always be differences of opinion), you take solace in mob destruction but yet still tell yourself you're fighting the good fight.

>> distributed implementation of fascism

> Do you notice the contradiction?

Not at all. The result is the same for those on the receiving end. (and for your inevitable thought of 'well they deserve it' - that's exactly the position of the oppressors you're fighting against. good job!)

Re: Two Kinds of Freedom of Speech (or Strangeloop vs. Curtis Yarvin)

#159

Post by davidgerard »

amcastillo wrote: post #154
davidgerard wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, neoreactionaries are mostly notable for their startling lack of real-world achievements. Yarvin is exceptional in this regard. (Tunney has disclaimed "neoreaction" of late.) They tend to have extensive blogging credentials, however. (And are a dab hand with an occasional cheese dip.) edit: if there are others with notable real-world achievements, I will eagerly accept correction.

A lot of people who blog on these ideas maintain pseudonyms to prevent Strangeloop-like witch hunts ruining their professional lives. Neoreactionary ideas have been picked up and directly cited by cultural influencers like Ross Douthat, Ed West, and William Gibson, however. They see themselves as a right wing Frankfurt School - not noteworthy for their identities, but for their subtle cultural impact.

> Frankfurt School - not noteworthy for their identities, but for their subtle cultural impact.

ah, the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory? http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism um, ok

Re: Two Kinds of Freedom of Speech (or Strangeloop vs. Curtis Yarvin)

#160

Post by nkurz »

sdfghjkl34567 wrote: post #140
mindslight wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You came up with that specific hypothetical and it inherently carries your framework. It is set up as a zero sum interaction where everyone needs to be brought down rather than lifted up. But fighting injustice with more injustice is a race to the bottom. By your usage, I presume you're using definition #1 of http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascist even though you are not capitalizing it. If it is possible…

Dictionaries are descriptions, not proscriptions, of words. I'm not "using" any definition of fascism other than the one I've built up in my own mind based on my own lived experiences. I'm not going to be questioned on a dictionary. It is true that all exercises of political power are at the end of the day coercive. My personal take on this is to minimize political power, but to do this takes a specific social arrang…

It is much, much easier to get a fascist talk removed from a conference

How does one distinguish a "fascist talk" from a "technical talk presented by one accused of being a fascist"? Is the difference relevant? I think Moldbug views himself as anti-fascist, and argues that Fascism and Communism are alternative undesirable endgames for democracy: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/07/carlyle...

And I'm not sure whether one should equate Moldbug with Yarvin. Is the blogger a pseudonym, a construct, a caricature, or an alter-ego? Should a comedian be equated with their on-stage persona? An actor with the character they play? An author with their protagonist?

I (truly) appreciate the insight your earlier comments provide.

Post reply on HN