MBlume comments on What's in a name? That which we call a rationalist… - Less Wrong

4 Post author: badger 24 April 2009 11:53PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (88)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: MBlume 25 April 2009 06:30:53AM *  4 points [-]

I'm not so sure. Secret societies are considered strange right now, but the masons wielded power and influence for hundreds of years. It seems to me likely that secret societies aren't fashionable right now. And if we form an amazing, effective secret society, they could become fashionable. The question is, would the trappings of a rationalist conspiracy help or hurt us in the long run?

Of course, it would be a lot more fun to do it this way.

Comment author: Jack 25 April 2009 06:58:55AM 5 points [-]

Entering rationalist porn territory- but one option would be doing both. You'd have a respectable, serious organization that conveyed legitimacy to certain important ideas that are advocated in public. But the organization would really be a front for the secret society of cartographers.

Comment author: SoullessAutomaton 25 April 2009 12:15:03PM 1 point [-]

Of course, any society being discussed on a public web site isn't terribly secret...

Comment author: Psy-Kosh 25 April 2009 02:08:23PM 8 points [-]

Which is exactly what we'll point out when we're accused of being a front organization for some secret society: "Absolutely. Here's our website about it. Sorry, I'm all out of pamphlets summarizing our conspiracy, but I can get some to you tomorrow." :)