Thinker? Debatable. Computer scientist? LOL

Also: note that it is centred around her sister. Note to self: do not direct LLM to write erotica about a sibling, because that is not a normal thing to do for someone turning over a new leaf.

I guarantee that if there is a libertarian space colony, all of their life support systems will be contaminated by mutant tardigrades (aka water bears). The libertarians yearn for destruction by bears.

Yeah sure, just learn university courses before puberty. And then again after.

It’s called learnmaxxing and it’s only for alpha males

Given that Ellison star-witnessed her ex into >200000 hours in the clink, I dread to think of what might happen to the person that marries her

Sneering my way through the comments.

Here’s Jonatan Pallesen, whose twitter bio is: “PhD in statistical genetics. I analyze and tweet about questions in science and economics.” HMM.

Another example of targeting in this case is me. I wrote a critique of Claudine Gay's research, which I think is quite strong. (https://x.com/jonatanpallesen/status/1749546447811277119 and https://x.com/jonatanpallesen/status/1740324971430154471)

Putting aside the validity of the critiques, why does this fellow feel the need to look into this research at this point in time? Could it be that he is… targeting Gay while she is in the limelight? Couldn’t be, only the evil media would do such a thing.

And for this I was attacked by the Guardian for things completely unrelated, such as my views on immigration, and previous coauthors.

So I went ahead and searched the dude’s name and “guardian”. Here’s what showed up.

If I were to guess why he was “attacked” (really just reported on accurately), it would be that he was name checked by one of the main parties involved in Gay’s resignation, and the guardian was doing its due diligence and investigating every aspect of the story. That’s way less assuming than Jon’s explanation of being targeted.

It can obviously have a chilling effect if you write a critique of a scientific paper, you risk being called racist by a major newspaper.

Better ways to say what really happened:

• A racist dude sung my praises, the guardian suspected I am racist by association, investigated, and found out that I am indeed racist.
• If you say and do racist shit like race science, people will call you racist, because you are racist

I keep coming back to this. I've been thinking about the internal monologue that necessarily had to happen to get here.

"Speech taboos exist."

• normal reply: "Yeah, words only have meaning due to baggage; some words carry heavier baggage, making them taboo in ordinary conversation."
• this fucking guy: "Words shouldn't be taboo; that's irrational."

"People end associations and friendships based on word choice."

• normal: "Not hard to imagine."
• TFG: "There is literally no reason to end a friendship over word choice unless the other person doesn't let you use slurs in casual conversation."

"The best way to get to know what ideologies someone subscribes to is by dropping slurs in conversation."

• TFG: "Yes, and it's really important to test the ideologies of strangers in the most flippantly casually offensive way possible, which doubles as a great first impression. You will look alpha as fuck by using slurs."
• normal: "Huh, haven't had an intrusive thought like that in a while. Where'd that come from?"

"It's ok to say the n-word as long as you don't think about race at all and never with any negative sentiment."

• TFG: "Yes, this is the extent to which CRT needs to be taught in schools. Then we can teach rationality and run IQ tests."
• normal: "OK I really need to see my therapist; maybe it's time to try Wellbutrin."^1^

1: this post not sponsored by wellbutrin

There’s a lot of stupidity to unpack in that first tweet.

• “I’m called a Nazi” honestly first I’m hearing of it, so to me this is self identification
• “White culture” I imagine grimes here is saying “anything that someone who would at first glance look like a modern white person has done in all of history”
• “Brown king Cyrus the Great” I’m not racist because one of the historical figures i think about every day is brown!
• “who invented the first empire” ah yeah he MacGuyver’d one together with pure brown ingenuity, sticktoitiveness, and a plastic straw
• “Japanese icon Murasaki Shikibu[‘s] … first novel ever” tangent: perhaps this is just my own brand of degeneracy on display here: grimes is referring to “The Tale of Genji”, which I mainly know about because some of the core relationships in the book revolve around adults grooming their wards into spouses (it was a different time), which has popped up nowadays in the discourse of some fiction coming out of Japan (see Usagi Drop). So I’m tempted to project onto grimes a veneration for grooming, which kinda tracks, but it’s a stretch.
• “What if humans just loved each other?” You’re like 3 years late to former IDF member Gal Gadot’s imagine video

Gotta love the way that TESCREALnts write and how they have a tendency to generate fractally stupid things like this. There’s so much more you could say. Basically, if I could say “that’s not how any of this works” to Grimes, I would.

Hmm, how significant are we talking

predicted IQ of about 900

lol

“Today I will display my mastery of LOGIC and PERSUASION by contriving a scenario in which one simply MUST mercy kill their adult progeny. The masses will PROSTRATE themselves before me in ADORATION. They will learn to REVERE and FEAR the magnitude of my brain.”

is definitely a normal one for an ssc user.

What I’m hearing is: guy gains wealth and cultural capital, realises he is steadily approaching the echelon of society that the police actually protect, decides they are not so bad after all, and now wants privatisation of police so that he can build a personal army.

Like sure it can be argued that policing as it is right now has some benefit to social order, and it definitely can be argued that the situation can be improved. On the latter point, calls to defund/abolish the police are a valid means to that end. Yet OP for whatever reason has decided that the only real solution is literally that libertarian cop copypasta.

Just sneering at a couple of comments, mostly the first.

This situation is best modeled by conflict theory, not mistake theory.

I thought rationalists were supposed to be strict mistake theorists (in their own terms). Seeing someone here essentially say, "Their opposition to us can't be resolved simply, just like how issues in the world are complex and not simple mistakes," when they actually believe (as any good liberal/nxr would) that any societal issue is a simple mistake to be corrected is... weird.

Since that does not seem likely to be the sort of answer you’re looking for though, if I wanted to bridge the inferential gap with a hypothetical Sneer Clubber who genuinely cared about truth, or indeed about anything other than status (which they do not)

This is the finest copium. Pure, uncut. Yes, I'm here to "boost my status" by collecting internet points. Everyone knows my name and keeps track of how cool I am. I don't sleep in a hotel and I own triples of every classic car. Triples makes it safe.

If you think that the conventional way to approach the world is usually right, the rationalist community will seem unusually stupid. We ignore all this free wisdom lying around and try to reinvent the wheel! If the conventional wisdom is correct, then concerns about the world changing, whether due to AI or any other reason, are pointless. If they were important, conventional wisdom would already be talking about them.

Hey, don't try to position yourselves as the plucky underdog/maverick here. That's a culture war move, and you aren't allowed to do that!

/r/SneerClub users are not the sort of entities with whom you can have that conversation. You might as well ask a group of chimpanzees why they're throwing shit at you.

LW talking to us would be more like this: a group of chimpanzees is throwing shit at some LWers. The LWers ask the chimps why. The chimps explain, using everyday language and concepts, that they think the worldview of the LWers is wrong and skewed in weird directions, and that any time someone tries to explain this, the chimps are met with condescension and the accusation that they can't understand the LWers because they are chimps. So in protest, the chimps explain they throw shit. The LWers shrug and say they can't understand what the chimps are saying, because they are chimps and chimps can't speak human language. The chimps continue to throw shit.

I think Sneer Club understands the Less Wrong worldview well enough. They just happen to reject it.

Least wrong LWer.