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.