I've spent the last 15 minutes reading everything I can find about the subject, and honestly nothing seems very inflammatory. Have you read this?
https://medium.com/@curtis.yarvin/why-you-should-come-to-lam...
He seems like a reasonable, intelligent person, and people have gone out of their way to mischaracterize what he did say and to label him a racist.
He was also writing under a pen name, and -- believe it or not -- roleplaying is common recreation. Just because Moldbug believed something doesn't mean Chris believed those things.
All in all, I think this is just another example of the insular tribalism present in all of Silicon Valley. It's ironic that the place that prides itself on being the most tolerant and the most progressive is in fact so victorian and reductionist that their ideas can't withstand a simple debate.
Easier to label and shun, eh? I'm not a fan.
It's somewhat ridiculous that I have to add a disclaimer that I don't share any of their ideology, even in secret. I'm proud of my beliefs, and this has nothing to do with the politics at play. If you're going to be inclusive, then be inclusive. To shun someone so intelligent and to reduce their entire body of work to a few glib sentences isn't a productive strategy.
From my perspective, it seems strange that anyone could read that Medium post and come away hating Chris. He's clearly here to talk tech, not politics. So what's the problem?
When you join a Twitter mob and serve as a sort of informal government — by deciding, for instance, who can speak at a conference — you’re feeding your inner chimpanzee. It feels good. Your conscience may be convinced that it’s spiritually the right thing to do. But your limbic system is just plain high. Twitter is a drug cartel. The drug is power. Or at least, apparent power.
Hear, hear. When you seek to suppress an idea, people like me get curious. Why are you so worried that Chris is the founder? It makes me want to dig in to their beliefs and decide for myself.
Don't you see? Speaking out like this actively helps the very side you're trying to defeat. They come off looking reasonable, whereas your argument boils down to "He's toxic because reasons."
One of the most persuasive things you could do in this situation would be to post a quote written by Chris. Posting a quote from Moldbug would be the second most persuasive thing. Failing either of those, are we supposed to just take your word for it that the dude should be excluded from society?
This whole "label and exclude" thing is for the birds. Why not judge ideas instead of people?