= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Emile comments on Open Thread, November 23-30, 2013 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (295)
Eliezer's comment hurt my feelings and I'm not sure why it was really necessary. Responding to something just reinforces the original idea. If rationalists want to reject the Enlightenment, we should have every right to do so, without Eliezer proclaiming that it's not canon for this community.
If I had still been working for MIRI now, would I be fired because of my political beliefs? That's the question bothering me. Are brilliant mathematicians going to be excluded from MIRI for having reactionary views?
Part of the comment is basically like, "Scott Alexander good boy. We have paid him recently. Anissimov bad. Bad Anissimov no work for us no more."
Hm, I didn't feel that Eliezer was being particularly dismissive (and am somewhat surprised by the level of the reactions in this thread here). The original post sort-of insinuated that MIRI was linked to neoreaction, so Eliezer correctly pointed out that MIRI was even more closely linked to criticism of Neoreaction, which seems like what anybody would do if he found himself associated with an ideology he disagreed with - regardless of the public relations fallout of that ideology.
Reminder that the article just said neoreactionaries "crop up" at Less Wrong. Then the author referred to a "conspiracy," which he admits is just a joke and explicitly says he doesn't actually believe in it. The fact that Eliezer felt the need to respond explicitly to these two points with an official-sounding disavowal shows hypersensitivity, just like he displayed hypersensitivity in his tone when he reacted to the "Why is Moldbug so popular on Less Wrong?" thread. The tone is one of "Get it off me! Get it off me! Aiyeee!" If he actually wanted to achieve the "get it off me" goal, indifference would be a more effective response.
I routinely read "I was only joking" as "I meant every word but need plausible deniability."
Silence is often consent & agreement.
Does no official response from Hacker News, which also received the damning accusation that neoreactionaries "crop up" there, imply consent and agreement from Y Combinator?
Given the things PG has said at times, I'm not sure that is a wrong interpretation of matters. Modus ponens, tollens...
There's a difference between "neoreactionary" and "expresses skepticism against Progressive Orthodoxy". Paul Graham might be guilty of the latter, but there's certainly little evidence to judge him guilty of the former.
Are you and Konkvistador using the word with different meanings, the former narrower and the latter broader? or am I missing something? or...
I wasn't aware we were a courtroom and we were holding our opinions to a level of 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. I was pointing out that silence is often consent & agreement (which it certainly is), that PG has expressed quite a few opinions a neoreactionary might also hold (consistent with holding neoreactionary views, albeit weak evidence), and he has been silent on the article (weak evidence, to be sure, but again, consistent).
<nitpick>IAWYC but the relevant standard is “which a neoreactionary is more likely to hold than a non-reactionary”. I'd guess both Ozy Frantz and Eugine_Nier would agree about the colour of the sky, but...</nitpick>