Live data from Hacker News

Curtis Yarvin's Plot Against America

newyorker.com

11–20 of 453 posts

Re: Curtis Yarvin's Plot Against America

#12
It's pretty sad that loonies like this get a platform at all.

The ultimate irony is that New Yorker in this case is writing an article about him, mocking his views...yet legitimizing them at the same time by associating their name with this kind of person at all.

How is this guy different from any other of the thousands moderately-successful tech people with an obscure hobby project (Urbit). Just because of his far-out-there views?

The only fascinating thing here is the phenomenon that no matter what nonsense you come up with, someone on the Internet will agree with you, think it's a good thing, and maybe even form a fan club.

Re: Curtis Yarvin's Plot Against America

#17
post #9

[flagged]

Please don't post glib dismissals here.

It's not that glib, it's a point made in the article.

> He found more of a community on Usenet, a precursor to today’s online forums. But even in groups like talk.bizarre, where intellectual peacocking was the norm, he stood out for his desire to dominate.

Re: Curtis Yarvin's Plot Against America

#18
I mentioned this previously, but I frequently think back to Gibson's "Jackpot" -- a cross-lashed, polycausal catastrophe: Lots of bad little things accumulating, building up a certain momentum.

I think that even as far back as 2009, an astute observer would have noticed that society is beginning to burn through its seed corn.

In some places, things are now getting extremely acute: https://www.neilobrien.co.uk/p/the-confluence?r=h8x

There's no way out but through, which means that politics are going to get extremely weird. Moldbug/Yarvin is one manifestation of this, and quite a benign and even harmless one. He's foppish and playful more than he is scary.

Re: Curtis Yarvin's Plot Against America

#20
post #5

Scott Alexander also recently had a take on Curtis Yarvin’s recent actions: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/moldbug-sold-out The gist of it is that he had interesting ideas on political systems in the past, but that his current ideas are nonsense, and in fact his old work explains exactly why his new work is nonsense.

Ironically, the quality of Scott's work has taken a markedly sharper nosedive in the last decade than the quality of Yarvin's work.
Post reply on HN