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.

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:

The fact that Eliezer felt the need to respond explicitly to these two points with an official-sounding disavowal shows hypersensitivity

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.