This isn’t going to work, but for the record, and on the vague off-chance that anyone who doesn’t already know possesses the mental capacity to update, I’ll state that I am actively hostile to neoreaction and neoreactionaries.  Anyone posting a neoreactionary concept on my Facebook wall would be instablocked and the comment deleted.  It’d be like their posting creationism on my wall; somebody needs to reeducate them, but it’s not going to be me.  I think that if you do argue with neoreactionaries instead of just blocking them, then you’ve been suckered into Somebody Is Wrong On The Internet syndrome and trollfeeding.

I’m writing this, not in any real hope of any of my Tumblr kismesis-stalkers listening, but because I do think there is a reasonable duty to occasionally repeat “Nope” for the historical record when somebody has gone around suggesting that you are endorsing the Cult of Hastur or whatever.

So if in the future you hear anyone on Tumblr mention “Eliezer Yudkowsky” and “neoreaction” in the same sentence and the connector isn’t something like “deletes", then remember always that that poster is intellectually dishonest and probably lying to you about other things as well.

@philsandifer’s book, Neoreaction a Basilisk, explores the massive overlap in the intellectual traditions and demographics of the rationalist and neoreactionary movements, and a major part of the book involves analyzing the movements’ intellectual codifiers: respectively, you (Eliezer @yudkowsky) and Nick Land.

The only way you could mistake this sort of analysis for the claim “Eliezer Yudkowsky is literally a neoreactionary” is if you were an idiot incapable of understanding anything with depth or nuance.

And as usual, you’re unable to handle even mild criticism, so you immediately fall back on your go-to defense mechanism: call the other person a liar, and hope your fellow rationalists are too inept at being rational to recognize your claim as the butthurt knee-jerk idiocy that it is. (This usually a pretty safe bet.) To anybody who isn’t part of the rationalist movement, this mostly just reveals you as the childist, self-important incompetent that you are.

Once again it’s the good ol common genre of response, “I can’t be a racist, I hate racists,” “I can’t be sexist, I hate sexism,” “I can’t be associated with neoreactionaries, I hate neoreactionaries!”

But the thing is that if this was a valid model of what it takes to “be” or be involved with anything (treating these things as voluntary factions that one must opt into) nobody could be called be a neoreactionary if they didn’t want to be, nobody could be evaluated as racist, or as sexist, or whatever. Any evidence wouldn’t matter.

It’s incorrect for anybody (especially anybody in good ol Y’s position) to assume that they are able to perfectly evaluate themselves independently. Nobody can perfectly analyze another of course, but it’s sheer hubris to basically say, “it’s impossible for me to have anything to do with the neoreactionary movement because I know so.” Or possibly, “because I would prefer that was so, I don’t want to be.”

Meanwhile I am pretty sure that that book has supported its conclusions in some manner. I haven’t read it so I can’t speak for how well or how poor that support is… but to dismiss it outright because it draws a threatening conclusion is just not evidence-based thinking.

When faced with a paper or something that proves (or disproves) a hypothesis in a way that we don’t like, do supposed empirical minds decide they’re going to disqualify it by default, decry all evidence it could have as not valid, because they’d rather its findings not be relevant. Or do they look at how the findings were found, and test their validity (with real, non-sham effort and intellectual integrity), and change a perspective even if it would be easier not to?

to be fair now, yudkowsky has already explicitly repudiated neoreaction and
doesn’t want anything to do with it in any way. he only put up with them
on lesswrong in the first place in a spirit of geek social fallacy. it’s fair enough for him not to want soft fascism hanging like a radioactive anvil over his work too, he hasn’t done anything to deserve it.

problem here is that while neoreaction is of no interest to yudkowsky,
yudkowsky is of tremendous interest to, and influence upon, neoreaction. you can’t talk about neoreaction without talking about lesswrong.
remember that dark enlightenment m:tg card of yudkowsky,
before wotc sent a takedown? even yudkowsky would find it hard to deny
that he has been a heavy influence upon neoreaction, even as he wants
nothing to do with them.

and, y’know, that they’re heavily
overlapping social groups with ideas flowing between them is a huge
amount of the problem with the rationalist subculture.

the current draft of @philsandifer’s neoreaction a basilisk
does make this reasonably clear imo, though perhaps it could do with
being emphasised. i also added this new repudiation to the rw nrx article.

I actually feel kinda sorry for Yudkowsky here. I don’t think he’s ever shown any sympathy for neoreaction at all, but for some reason those guys love him and so his reputation is tainted by the love of people who think the Nazis weren’t fascist enough.

I agree, but this only apples to the first two paragraphs.  The last paragraph seems to be saying that anyone who speaks of him and neo-reaction as having any kind of connection, even something like “they are aware of one another,” is lying.  This is both (1) absurd and (2) in context, very likely an attempt to discredit Neoreaction: A Basilisk, a book he has not read, before it has even been published.

FWIW I don’t know of any non-trivial connections between Yudkowsky’s ideas and neo-reactionary ideas.  They are definitely connected in social space, but it’s hard to trace any intellectual influence there.  It’s like saying he influenced Soylent: he preceded it, both came out of the same culture, many of the same people are interested in both, the creators of Soylent are probably aware of him … but there’s still nothing substantial there.

The only way you could mistake this sort of analysis for the claim “Eliezer Yudkowsky is literally a neoreactionary” is if you were an idiot incapable of understanding anything with depth or nuance.

What sort of analysis?

You may think that I am joking, but he doesn’t mention The Book anywhere in that text. He is literally just writing “yo dog somebody may soon bring this up so: I do not hold political position X and if somebody says I am they are lying.”

If you read something more into it, maybe:

as usual, you’re unable to handle even mild criticism, so you immediately fall back on your go-to defense mechanism: call the other person a liar

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s