41

I haven't read the whole thread yet, but so far the choice line is:

I like how you just dropped the “Vance is interested in right authoritarianism” like it’s a known fact to base your entire point on. Vance is the clearest demonstration of a libertarian the republicans have in high office. It’s an absurd ad hominem that you try to mask in your wall of text.

all 43 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Amoeba_Girl@awful.systems 14 points 18 hours ago

Or people could take away different things, especially since post-2014 (?) Scott approaches controversial issues much more cautiously and deliberately made known (Kolmogorov) that he was never going to fully honest around certain topics, inviting (deliberately or not, accurate or not) Straussian readings.

Ugh. These people seem sad and they make me sad.

[-] dgerard@awful.systems 26 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

Keep in mind that, for theologically conservative (“the Bible is historically and spiritually accurate”) Christians like myself,

rationalists whoo

[-] gerikson@awful.systems 19 points 17 hours ago

I think we can all agree now that US Rationalists are basically all ex-Christians who are looking for the same thing but with the serial numbers filed off.

[-] saucerwizard@awful.systems 12 points 14 hours ago

Some of them are even returning to presumably evangelical churches.

[-] prex@aussie.zone 4 points 4 hours ago

Evangelicals with extra steps?

[-] barsquid@lemmy.world 12 points 16 hours ago

Tired: I can speak directly to god and will be taken to paradise.

Wired: the god we will create will run a simulation that is indistinguishable from what I am currently (therefore it is literally me) so my thoughts right now are being read directly.

[-] self@awful.systems 15 points 22 hours ago

Sweet: Comments talking about the specific situation of JD Vance referencing an SSC post.

Not Sweet: Any other references to JD Vance about anything unrelated, including the upcoming election, per the culture war rule.

I probably shouldn’t be looking for meaning in a rule that’s designed so that none of Scott’s fans associate him with the fascist shit he constantly and intentionally platforms, but what the fuck is this supposed to mean? don’t bring up the only reason anyone including Joe Rogan gives a fuck about JD Vance?

[-] istewart@awful.systems 10 points 21 hours ago

I especially want to be sure that everyone here is aware that the video thumbnail clearly shows that JD Vance was not seated upon, or otherwise interacting with, a couch. JD Vance was calmly seated in a standard office chair for the duration of this interview. Any posts containing out-of-context references to couches will be dealt with vigorously.

[-] dgerard@awful.systems 15 points 22 hours ago

"There was a post, [pause], I forget who wrote it" <- the kind of thing I have said several times attempting to avoid leaking rationalist-evidence-bits.

gotta keep that power level under wraps

[-] istewart@awful.systems 13 points 22 hours ago

"Leaking rationalist-evidence-bits" is an unexpectedly top-tier euphemism for the aftermath of digesting Wendy's chili

[-] yuri@pawb.social 11 points 21 hours ago

Regarding I appreciate he takes a moment here and there to read reddit and sees the content on this sub. Do you think tim walz does?

ahahahahahahahahahahahahh

[-] ahopefullycuterrobot@awful.systems 7 points 16 hours ago

The arguments in favour of Walz increase without bound.

[-] slopjockey@awful.systems 17 points 1 day ago

We're potentially one election - and one big mac-related cardiac arrest - away from our first nooticer president. The American Experiment is on the verge of failure.

[-] ahopefullycuterrobot@awful.systems 6 points 16 hours ago

Is this what Brits felt like with Dominic Cummings?

[-] o7___o7@awful.systems 10 points 23 hours ago

Ya know, we used to joke about Ted Cruz being an alien and recording the shape of people's skulls, as if that were unusual.

[-] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 5 points 16 hours ago

Ted Cruz For Human President was a different time.

[-] Soyweiser@awful.systems 14 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

What a bastardization of that post, and Scott's general views on the subject

Can someone summarize how this is a big misinterpretation or mistake?

I'm not in any way MAGA or trumpy or a culture war person [sure you are. E: one sort by controversial later and they are indeed a culture war person not a full time one but still], but I'm a long time SSC reader and I thought the post/article was about the fascinating and complete sorta morhph/takeover of the civic "ethos" or civic religion of the elite bluebloods of the USA.

From veneration of founders and founding fathers (up through Abe Lincoln, etc) as the sorta civic glue and religion that we are brought up on, to now embracing LGBTQ+ (not much emphasis on boring normal "L" and "G" [dog barks]) through parades, flags, police cars, crosswalks, holidayds, add campaigns, corporate slogans and logos, etc.

Is this not how most readers understood the article?

Hope this makes some sscers reconsider being a fan of scotts writing. (And yes there was pushback in the replies)

[-] sailor_sega_saturn@awful.systems 18 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

not much emphasis on boring normal “L” and “G”

"Look I'm not really saying G-word and L-word are normal, but I might be willing to invite them to my BBQs if they never mention it, hate rainbows, and allow straight people to cut in line ahead of them as a civic duty."

Also wait is not even "B" 'normal' enough for this guy?

one sort by controversial later and they are indeed a culture war person

Instant regret.

This is asked in all sincerity: Why is there a coherent “community” of lesbians, gays, and transgender people? What is the important linking commonality that makes those groups into a community?

Gee I wonder. Also new rule whenever someone posts that they're asking something in sincerity or just wanting to understand or "confused", you're allowed to laugh in their face before they can finish. Seriously does anyone even fall for this anymore? It's so obvious.

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 2 points 58 minutes ago* (last edited 56 minutes ago)

They don’t think of bisexuals as including married monogamous people who just so happen to be bisexual. It’s a thing. They want to paint the queer community’s “normal people” as “unfortunately exclusively attracted to the same gender”

And yeah some people really want to find a reason to exclude trans people and not acknowledge that we’ve always been part of our communities.

[-] saucerwizard@awful.systems 6 points 14 hours ago

They don’t like bisexuals.

[-] Amoeba_Girl@awful.systems 6 points 18 hours ago

B-but homophobia is a social phenomenon. It's not real (genetic)!

[-] Soyweiser@awful.systems 12 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

They are also concerned about t levels in athletes, and IQ comes up. Which he defends with "If you think none of these tests are actually measuring anything of value, you must need to explain why they correlate so well with life outcomes related to cognition."

I think a problem with ssc people is that they dont realize they are culture warriors.

[-] bitofhope@awful.systems 6 points 1 hour ago

Me acing Raven's progressive matrix tests: Haha fuck yeah!!! Yes!!

Me dropping out of uni: Well this fucking sucks. What the fuck.

[-] dgerard@awful.systems 8 points 22 hours ago

i see no evidence they don't realise just fine

[-] Soyweiser@awful.systems 2 points 3 hours ago

Yeah considering various culture war posts are clearly still up, including ones calling progressives going crazy it all is a lot of plausible deniability.

[-] Evinceo@awful.systems 12 points 1 day ago

life outcomes related to cognition

My sides.

[-] istewart@awful.systems 6 points 22 hours ago

Well, he was already practically an SS-Mann without the neck lapels, so why be surprised about this?

this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2024
41 points (100.0% liked)

SneerClub

979 readers
96 users here now

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.]

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS