You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

private_messaging comments on Fascists and Rakes - Less Wrong Discussion

39 Post author: philh 05 January 2014 12:41AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (67)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: bramflakes 05 January 2014 01:36:00AM 4 points [-]

Does this have anything to do with racism and fakes? Because while reading it I kept swapping them and trying to second-guess what your point would be and now my brain hurts.

Comment author: Vulture 05 January 2014 01:41:11AM *  11 points [-]

I'm pretty sure "facist" is a misspelling of "fascist", not of "racist". Also, it would seem that the word "rake" has some colloquial meaning that I've never heard before. From context I assume it's something like "willfully evil person", but I don't actually know.

Comment author: Nornagest 05 January 2014 03:14:49AM *  11 points [-]

Also, it would seem that the word "rake" has some colloquial meaning that I've never heard before. From context I assume it's something like "willfully evil person", but I don't actually know.

It's an early modern-era term for a man accustomed to vice, especially sexual misconduct. I particularly associate the word with "A Rake's Progress", a series of paintings depicting a young aristocrat's descent into debt and insanity by way of all the dissolution you'd probably expect to find in a story like that, but you needn't limit it to that.

Comment author: philh 05 January 2014 01:58:19AM *  11 points [-]

Crap, yes, that's fascist, thanks. Edited. (It's so obviously wrong now that you've pointed it out...)

Rake is actually kind of an old-fashioned word. I'm not very happy with it, but I couldn't think of one that I liked better. It's not so much willfully evil as indifferently evil: "I eat tic-tacs because I like the taste and don't care about their suffering". "Amoral" would have worked, but I wanted a noun. Possibly I should not have wanted a noun as much as I did.

Edit: I've inserted a working definition in the post.

Comment author: lmm 07 January 2014 09:54:37PM 2 points [-]

I'm used to "rake" meaning an amorous nobleman; originally connoting disapproval but now implies more dashing than anything else. I don't think it really means evil.