= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MichaelAnissimov comments on Open Thread, November 23-30, 2013 - Less Wrong Discussion
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."
Absolutely true.
Eh? Is that because of a more general principle that Eliezer ought not make statements about what is and isn't LW canon, or is it a special case?
Special case. This site is based around his work so he has every right to decide what it is officially linked to, but the tone of his remarks seemed to go much further than merely disavowing an official connection. Eliezer also states, "More Right" is not any kind of acknowledged offspring of Less Wrong nor is it so much as linked to by the Less Wrong site.", but More Right is indeed linked to in the blogs section of the Wiki, last time I checked. Also, More Right was founded by LessWrong rationalists applying rationality to reactionary ideas. More Right is indeed an indirect offspring of the LessWrong community, whether community leaders like it or not.
You claim a right not to have your feelings hurt that overrules Eliezer's right to speak on the matter? That concept of offense-based rights and freedom to say only nice things is one that I am more used to seeing neoreactionaries find in their hated enemies, the progressives. Are you sure you know where you are actually standing?
Eliezer has made a true statement: that neoreaction is not canon for LessWrong or MIRI, in response to an article strongly suggesting the opposite.
Elsethread you write:
So Eliezer shouldn't say anything, because:
1. He's hurting your feelings.
2. He's being hypersensitive.
Thank you for making this so clear.
Apparently the supposed Streisand effect applies to him responding to Klint but not to you responding to him. How does that one go?
"Responding to something just reinforces the original idea" touts timidity as a virtue -- again, not a sentiment I would ever expect to see penned by any of the neoreactionaries I have read. These are the words of a sheep in wolf's clothing.
And btw, it looks to me like Eliezer's wasn't an official-sounding disavowal, it was an official disavowal.
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>
You should know perfectly well that as long as MIRI needs to coexist and cooperate with the Cathedral (as colleges are the main source of mathematicians) they can't afford to be thought of as right wing. Take comfort at least in knowing that whatever Eliezer says publicly is not very strong evidence of any actual feelings he may or may not have about you.
That's a very interesting phrase.
It may well be true in which case it reflects a very interesting feature of the territory.
I can't figure out whether the critics believe the Cathedral is right-wing paranoia or a real thing.
MIRI is seen as apolitical. I doubt an offhand mention in a TechCrunch hatchet job is going to change that, but a firm public disavowal might, per the Streisand effect.
From reading HPMOR and some of the sequences (I'm very slowly working my way through them) I get the impression that Eliezer is very pro-enlightenment. I can't imagine that he'd often explicitly claim to be pro-enlightenment if he weren't, rather than simply avoiding the whole issue.
The Enlightenment predates democratic orthodoxy. Monarchs like Louis XVI, Catherine II, and Frederick the Great were explicitly pro-Enlightenment.
I had thought that reactionaries were anti-enlightenment though?
It's complicated. We reject some parts of the Enlightenment but not all. Jayson just listed three of my favorite monarchs, actually.
being pro-enlightment from the perspective of a science fanboy and poly amorous atheist is different than being pro-enlightment as a direct counterargument to reactionary thought. Certainly before I read NR stuff I never thought a reasonable person could claim the enlightenment was a bad thing.
Your response to Eliezer, both here and in the other thread, comes across as a completely unjustified refusal to take his comment at face-value: Eliezer explaining that he concluded your views were not worth spending time on for quite rational reasons, and is saying so because he doesn't want people thinking he or the majority of the community he leads hold views which they don't in fact hold.
This seems to be part of a pattern with you: you refuse to accept that people (especially smart people) really disagree with you, and aren't just lying about their views for fear or reputational consequences. It's reminiscent of creationists who insist there's a big conspiracy among scienitsts to suppress their revolutionary ideas. And it contributes to me being glad that you are no longer working for MIRI, for much the same reasons that I am glad MIRI does not employ any outspoken creationists.
I find this comment a bit mean (and meaner than most of what I saw in this thread or the linked one, tho I haven't read that one in much detail).
Maybe it's because other people feel more strongly about this topic than I do; to me "democracy vs. monarchy" is both a confused and fuzzy question and an irrelevant one. Maybe with a lot of effort one can clarify the question and with even more effort, come up with an answer, but then it has no practical consequences.
Chris is obviously being mean-spirited here, and a direct response would only escalate, so I won't make one.
Not mean-spirited. Just honest. If this were a private conversation, I'd keep my thoughts to myself and leave in search of more rational company, but when someone starts publicly saying things like...
(all of which are grossly unfair readings of Eliezer's coment)
...then I think some bluntness is called for.
Not that much more unfair than proclaiming something thoroughly refuted and uninteresting based on a single post rebutting the least interesting claims of only two authors, especially given that what appears to have gotten picked up as the central point of the post (NK/SK) is wrong on many different levels.