Open Thread, November 23-30, 2013

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.

A1987dM12y100

There's a difference between "neoreactionary" and "expresses skepticism against Progressive Orthodoxy".

Are you and Konkvistador using the word with different meanings, the former narrower and the latter broader? or am I missing something? or...

8gwern12y

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).

See in context