= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
gwern 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)
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>