So, R9PRESENTATIONALists are classicists who defend the "traditional university" and the Great Books canon, while also denouncing large institutions and aiming "to elevate the perspectives of underprivileged minorities".
Sure, Jan.
I hate to "give it to them", but the targets of TESCREAL are reprehensible BUT fascinating. It's kinda fun to learn about people like the Cosmists or Nick fucking Land. But the targets of this dude are basically unknown academics. The right doesn't need a convoluted acronym to dump on those, they already have "woke".
I feel like lesswrong's front page has what would be a neat concept in a science fiction story at least once a week. Like what if an AGI had a constant record of it's thoughts, but it learned to hide what it was really thinking in them with complex stenography! That's a solid third act twist of at least a B sci-fi plot, if not enough to carry a good story by itself. Except lesswrong is trying to get their ideas passed in legislation and they are being used as the hype wing of the latest tech-craze. And they only occasionally write actually fun stories, as opposed to polemic stories beating you over the head with their moral or ten thousand word pseudo-academic blog posts.
Almost all are avowedly committed to the ideals of tolerance, pluralism, and diversity in faith; if you were to say that a belief system should be dismissed simply because it is essentially religious in nature in essentially any other context, they would be some of the loudest voices speaking out against you. So why should TESCREAL be any different? Why is it that religion as a whole is fine, but not this religion?
Because a religion passing itself off as scientific is a bad thing? Just spitballin' here.
That's true. "Passing itself off as scientific" also describes Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design and various other pseudosciences. And in terms of who is pushing pseudoscience... the curent US administration is undeniably right-wing and opposed to all mainstream science.
Also, I would at least partially disagree with this:
Very few of the people making this argument are militant atheists who consider religion bad in of itself.
I would identify as an atheist, if not a militant one. And looking at Emile Torres' Wikipedia page, he is an atheist also. Judging by the uncommon occasions it comes up on sneerclub, I think a lot of us are atheist/agnostic. Just not, you know, "militant". And in terms of political allegiance, a lot of the libertarians on lesswrong are excited for the tax cuts and war on woke of the Trump administration even if it means cutting funding to all science and partnering up with completely batshit Fundamenalist Evangelicals.
It feels like this person was mad at the TESCREAL label and decided to make a blog post going "nuh-uh, I know you are but what am I"... except they have none of the academic ability of the TESCREAL authors so they just sort of pile on labels and ideologies without properly showing any causal or ideological relationship (like the TESCREAL authors do). Heck, they outright screw up words and definitions in a few places, (Orate sticks out to me).
except they have none of the academic ability of the TESCREAL authors
This has two potential readings, and both of them are funny.
Yep.
"Yall are in a cult, and it is TESCREAL."
"No, you jocks are are doing a religion but dont know it, here is why you are doing ruh-nine-presentationalism, and ..."
"Yeah this it"
“Yall are in a cult, and it is TESCREAL.”
So I know you were going for a snappy summary, but I think one of the important things to note is that the TESCREAL essay doesn't call them a singular cult, it draws connections between the letters of the acronym including inspirations, people in multiple letters of the acronym, common terminology, common ideological assumptions, and such.
I think a hypothetical more mature rationalist movement would acknowledge their historical and current influences and think critically about how they relate to them instead of just going nuh-uh. Like the relatively more reasonable EAs occasionally point out problematic trends in their movement and at least try to address them (not particularly effectually, but at least they aren't all in total denial).
Yeah i was just doing the meme from king of the hill. If I go indepth, I would sneer at stuff like: "Because if TESCREALism really is a secularized religion, then… so what?"
For being a misrepresentation, it is secularized eschatological Christianity (perhaps even Catholicism, but not Protestant enough to say that, counting the rich feels very knife in church door ish), not just a religion. Doesn't even represent the argument correctly. It is the rapture of the nerds, not the breaking of the Saṃsāra for nerds.
E: bonus points for after first generalizing religion then picking islam as some weird anti apostate example. Must have been an accident. E2: the apostate (yes, my word, he said 'shirkers', which is not a term I have ever seen used re religion) stuff is even funnier considering that Émile P. Torres (who for some reason is not mentioned in the opening, just later), is somebody who has written about “existential threats” for ages (more on his ideas on this here which also has the bonus that it is way more readable than the main post), DavidG was a lesswronger, a lot of science fiction writers who are not positive about TESCREAL are people who wrote transhumanist sf, and see also the large group of sneerclubbers who used to read LW/SSC etc. (E3: forgot to mention, Gebru is a computer scientist).
Oh duh, I remember that meme now. With the people getting on the bus wearing weird white robe outfits?
Yep
I like that his first argument out of the gate is "You call us a secular religion? Well maybe we are, what happened to religious tolerance?" Just perfect how you tee yourself up to fall in line with the religious conservatives when needed.
We really need bring some sceptical epistemic attitudes back. Maybe some kind of eco-atheism, keeping yourself grounded on actual real shit. (for some definition of real)
Pronounced ruh-nine-presentationalism
Hochman correctly deduces that R9PRESENTATIONALism originated in the 18th century, but fails to realize that the roots of this movement actually lie with the Bavarian Illuminati, a secret society which was supposedly suppressed by edict in 1784 but has in fact maintained a shadowy existence influencing politics up to the present day.
I think we could count discordianism as an antirationalist ally
Most people on discord hate Rationalism.
We aren't. Speaking for all Discordians (something that I'm allowed to do), we see Rationalism as part of the larger pattern of Bureaucracy. Discordians view the cycle of existence as having five stages: Chaos, Discord, Confusion, Bureaucracy, and The Aftermath. Rationalism is part of Bureaucracy, associated with villainy, anti-progress, and candid antagonists. None of this is good or bad, it just is; good and bad are our opinions, not a deeper truth.
Now, if you were to talk about Pastafarians, then you'd get a different story; but you didn't, so I won't.
You almost talk as if you are a pope or something.
I see you, I believe rationalism would be seen as more aneristic and so many discordians would naturally turn against them. thoudh ultimately their frame of reference is no better or worse than any other. So let me amend my statement꧇ I believe the average disqordian would find themselves in opposition to rationalism.
frankly i feel like i need to excommunicate the lot of you. which i do, by the powers vested in me by being the one true pope etc.
This was one obscure shitpost to decode.
Hurling ordure at the TREACLES, especially those closely related to LessWrong.
AI-Industrial-Complex grift is fine as long as it sufficiently relates to the AI doom from the TREACLES. (Though TechTakes may be more suitable.)
This is sneer club, not debate club. Unless it's amusing debate.
[Especially don't debate the race scientists, if any sneak in - we ban and delete them as unsuitable for the server.]
See our twin at Reddit