= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Apprentice comments on [LINK] Why I'm not on the Rationalist Masterlist - 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 (866)
I think this is a bit too black and white. There is not a well-defined group of ideologically homogeneous reactionaries which you could just get rid off. Rather, a significant number of LW contributors are sympathetic, to various degrees, to a variety of reactionary positions. I'm not a monarchist and I'm not a fan of Moldbug (why doesn't he just say what his claims are and then offer what he sees as the supporting evidence for them? why the wearisomely verbose exercises in smugness?). On the other hand, I am interested in HBD issues and I am sympathetic to some ethno-nationalist causes (e.g. the desires of the current majority population of Israel to remain the majority population of Israel). Perhaps more to the point, Yvain has spent a lot of time criticizing reactionary philosophy but he has also made it clear that he agrees with significant parts of it. Indeed, a person being upset by his posts is what triggered the current thread.
How about that good old Solzhenitsyn quote:
Very well put. I agree entirely with what you are saying, and I think you said it very well.
I want to add though an emphasis that the line specifically between libertarianism and reactionary-ism is a very narrow one. Both philosophies come from the same background, with similar axioms. It is surprising, so it bears emphasis.
I am in the same boat as Apprentice when it comes to these matters, and whenever I read a reactionary post I feel a certain familiarity, along the lines of: "this may not be fully valid, but the people arguing it are very smart, and what's more actually started from a surprisingly similar position to me. I may not agree with most of the conclusions, or with the tone it is presented in, but I cannot deny that they have certain good points."
What parts of neo-reactionary philosophy does Yvain actually agree with? He says at the end of the anti-reactionary FAQ that he likes how they're utopian, but then says he's actually more interested in other utopian schemes.
This comment by Yvain clears up a lot:
Here's a link to the Nutshell essay. The 'stop digging' phrase occurs in discussions of cultural assimilationism, immigration selectionism, Chinese-style neo-imperialism and corporal punishment. Presumably, Yvain has some degree of sympathy for most or all of these policies. But of course you should rely on what he says in preference to any exegesis of mine.
In the comment section of Jim's Blog, Toddy Cat pointed out some positions he saw as areas of agreement between Yvain and neoreactionaries (Jim himself disagreed, and Yvain has not responded as far as I'm aware).
The original Yvain's sin was admitting that hypothetically "his side" might be wrong about some details, and it might be worth to consider the evidence, and in case it shows convincing, update. Then he just dug himself deeper.
To a LW regular, this may seem like Rationality 101, but in real life, this is often enough to be expelled from the paradise of one's tribe. (And it happens in many different tribes, not just this one.)
The similarity between Yvain and neo-reactionaries is that both of them are willing to look at the evidence against Yvain's tribe's beliefs. They may have completely different motivation to do that, but whatever. This is what a loyal member of the tribe wouldn't do. This is what people in general don't do, unless they are exceptionally honest or exceptionally socially clueless.
I understand that your comment might exaggerate for the sake of irony, but I think you might be getting too close to applause-lights with it. You're saying (essentially) that it takes exceptional honesty to be willing to look at the evidence against your tribe's beliefs. That seems wrong. Complete and utter dogmatism isn't that common outside explicitly religious domains. People very frequently are honestly willing to look at the evidence against their wrong beliefs, and then they're honestly unconvinced by it, even if often it's because they misunderstood the evidence or failed to give it proper consideration. In fact, I feel certain that almost all neo-reactionaries think of themselves as willing to look at the evidence against their beliefs, as having done so many times, and as having vanquished that evidence.
I don't recall Yvain ever actually asserting in his own name any of the views being attributed to him in that comment.