= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
skeptical_lurker comments on Neo-reactionaries, why are you neo-reactionary? - 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 (616)
IANANR,IFIDSIWAPLATMDTTTOMC (I am not a neoreactionary, in fact I don't strongly identify with any political labels at the moment due to the threat of motivated cognition)
But,
I think I have grasped the link between LW and NRx. Its a mixture of having something to protect and extrapolating trends. Whereas singulatarians looks at exponential trends in computing, extrapolate and see a future where some form of superintelligence will surely come to dominate, worrying that human values could be destroyed, the NRx look at the trends of memes and genes, extrapolate the exponential growth, and see a future where their ingroup and values are massively outnumbered, which can be a death sentence in democracy.
If your terminal values are running against the tide of change, then progressivism is an existential risk. Imagine you believe in God if you do not, and then imagine Christianity going the same way as Norse paganism. Imagine everything you believe gives meaning to life being discarded to the dustbin of history. Or imagine that the positive correlation between religion and fertility reverses the secularisation of society in the long run, and we end up in a totalitarian theocracy. If somehow neither of these futures scares you, keep going until you imagine a future that does.
To put it another way, most people think "this group I disagree with is only 2% of the population. They're not a threat." NRx thinks "This group is only 2% and doubling every x years. Assuming the trend stays constant, how long do I have until they have a democratic majority?".
That sounded more positive of NRx than I intended. Conversely, while exit is not threatening, NRx taking over society is of course a big threat to anyone with progressive values.
Among the ways NRx differs, I think strategic prioritisation is one of the big points. Even if you believe that homosexuality is a big threat to civilisation (which I emphatically don't) well, there are a lot of homophobes. What is going to be the marginal benefit of one more homophobe? By comparison, one more cryonisist or one more FAI researcher has very large marginal benefit due to the small size of these groups. I find it really strange that Anissimov used to talk about the threat of nanotech/AI/bioterrorism and now talks about the threat of gays and transsexuals. [Edit: I retract this last snetence - apparently I have been misinformed about Anissimov]
And meta-contrarianism too.
Where have I talked about the threat of gays and transsexuals? I merely asserted that one especially insane transsexual (Justine Tunney) not be associated with a reactionary movement. That makes sense, right?
And I quote:
Yes. In communities where the strength of the family is irrelevant and the only focus is on the self, such behaviors are common. These communities are slowly being replaced by others due to their failure to reproduce.
I don't know which communities you're talking about, but anecdotally I have to say I've found trans bars and support groups to have a much broader range in race, class, and origin than any other places I typically go.
Also, low testosterone you describe in that paragraph is not implicated as a cause of transgender behavior, with people generally being in the typical range for their birth sex before transition, which includes outliers with very high testosterone levels. Giving people additional testosterone has been tried and not been found to "cure" transgender behavior.
Relying on made-up facts for an entire paragraph of your purpose statement is not very encouraging.
Citation on the testosterone business?
According to wikipedia:
So maybe the amount of testosterone would be normal but it would have less effect?
What about low testosterone in utero (or high testosterone for f->m)?
What do you think the most probable cause of transgender behavior is?
I'm not sure about KaceyNow, I suspect transgender behavior is basically a culture bound syndrome.
Wikipedia lists a large amount of evidence for differences in genetics and brain volume. I know its possible that culture could cause changes in brain structure to some extent, but it can't influence genetics.
Given Wikipedia's editorial biases (and academia's publication biases) on these kinds of topics, it's almost certainly filtered evidence.
If I understand you correctly, transsexuals are not the problem, lack of family values and low testosterone are the problem, and transexuals are one symptom.
Assuming, for sake of argument, that this is true:
1) A lot of people are pro traditional family values. What do you think the marginal utility of one more advocate is? Or is advocating it amoung certain groups (e.g. LW) more important because we need intelligent people to keep breeding?
2) You say "These communities are slowly being replaced by others" - has your estimate for when the singularity occurs moved far back in time? Concerns about family values seem of little importance if non-biological intelligence is likly to turn up soon.
In reference to your first comment, basically yes.
1) The only reason I joined this thread in the first place is because someone attacked me, I don't particularly advocate neoreaction among LW groups, because I understand the community is hyper-liberalized to the point of absurdity.
2) Yes, my estimates of when the Singularity will occur moved from 2030-2040 to 2070-2080 over the last five years. This change is partially what has caused the neoreaction thing. I think there is a real risk that Western civilization will fall apart before we get there.
Is it really useful to give one numerical answer here? "2070-2080" doesn't capture the same amount of information as "if not before (say) 2050, not for a few centuries".
(Of course, the standard LW memeplex hardly has a reason to look forward to a non-Western singularity -- wouldn't it be almost certainly unfriendly by Western standards?)
1) I would agree that its probably best to keep NRx and LW separate. Still, this leaves the question of what is the marginal utility of advocating traditional family values?
2) I see, this does make your NRx position more understandable. I too have moved my estimates somewhat backwards.
1) Way too many to list here.
2) I still consider a near-future Singularity possible but not likely.
The LW tone has improved this year and this post is refreshing.
Alternate suggestions for making families stronger-- oppose whatever tends to weaken family ties.
Make divorce more difficult and/or more discouraged. Teach people how to be good companions.
http://www.businessinsider.com/lasting-relationships-rely-on-2-traits-2014-11
Discourage people from throwing their children out. This means discouraging homophobia and transphobia.
Support telecommuting. Being geographically scattered is hard on families.
That doesn't make families stronger -- that makes people who hate each other live together (usually with pretty bad results).
It does, but less divorce might still make for more stability in extended families. I don't know whether the effects of divorce on extended families has been studied.
I think that in this context stability is the wrong thing to optimize for.
Yes, NRx's are trying to do that too.
Is there an actual logical connection between those two sentences that isn't a fully general argument against parents insisting on any ethical standards from children?
You could distinguish between behavior which is clearly dangerous to other members of the family, and behavior which isn't.
Do you have evidence for that? The family is not the main unit for transmission of information. Professional educators took over that function long ago.
You single out Tunney for being transsexual, not insane.
Yes, not appropriate for being a reactionary leader in a far right group. Neoreaction is a social conservative movement. This is similar to how you wouldn't put an NRA member in charge of the local Democratic Party headquarters.
NRA membership is a changeable choice based on ideologic affiliations. Gender identity is firmware. You can't compare the two.
"Firmware"?
Gender reassignment surgery is not a blanket solution for every case of gender dysphoria. Variable rates of satisfaction with the surgery don't make gender identity any less of a psychoneurological fact as opposed to an ideological affiliation.
It seems like the number of people doing it is strongly correlated to the increased popularity of Tumblr.
You completely lost me there. What does Tumblr have to do with anything?
It promotes gender dysphoria by introducing it where it didn't previously exist.
<eyeroll>
Is that the Tumblr which is chock-full of straight porn?
I don't necessarily endorse MichaelAnissimov's take on this particular issue, but Tumblr's a big site. You can find everything from cat picture blogs to literal Nazis on it if you look. That doesn't mean it's disproportionately cats (plausible) or Nazis (very improbable), though, nor that people are talking about cat pictures or antisemitism when they complain about Tumblr culture.
More specifically, there are basically two things you can easily use Tumblr for: image sharing and text microblogging. The former lends itself well to porn, the latter to radical politics, and the communities built up around these use cases don't overlap all that much.
From what I heard I thought you were calling for people not to associate with any gays/transsexuals, or with people who themselves associate with gays/transexuals. I thought you thought that the threat posed was one of demographic decline.
I apologise if I have misrepresented your position, but that was how I interpreted the situation from what second-hand sources said. Incidentally, in what respect is Justine Tunney insane?
Apology accepted. Your second-hand sources were wrong, tell them that. It's so difficult to have legitimate discussions about NRx when 90% of the opinion the Less Wrong community has about us is based on stuff that is completely made up.
So, just to be clear... are you claiming that this quote isn't encouraging readers to reject and condemn transsexuals?
Or that the quote isn't yours?
Or that encouraging readers to reject and condemn transsexuals is meaningfully distinct in this context from calling for them not to associate with transsexuals?
Or something else?
It is my quote. It is meaningfully distinct, in the sense that we can participate in a progressive society where it's normalized, but recognize how it emphatically does not fit into a conservative framework.
In general, this position is similar to that of many conservative Republicans. It may be shocking to many of the people on this site to be exposed to view held by a majority of Americans, but that's just too bad. In any progressive "struggle session", I will fail. This is because I reject the entire progressive worldview.
OK. Thanks for clarifying. (I'm not really interested in discussing what about it may or may not be shocking and why it might be if it is, I just wanted to get your perspective on what seemed from mine to simply be two contradictory statements.)
To clarify further, I'm not a universalist, so I don't think everyone "should" condemn or approve of any particular individual or group. I said that for groups that care about strong families, they will need to denormalize alternative lifestyles. If groups don't care about strong families, they can do whatever they like. The "strong families" bit is essential to the meaning of the paragraph.
Further clarification accepted. FWIW, this is consistent with my previous understanding of your position, with standard error bars around "strong" and "family."
Reading that quote, what you said is stronger than that. You said "if communities are going to reap the benefits of strong families". Regardless of how this can be literally parsed, what it connotes is that you think that strong families are beneficial and that transsexuals, by preventing such benefits, are harmful and worthy of condemnation. Furthermore, your quote is full of loaded language which implies that you personally view transsexuals negatively.
I personally think that many of them are confused. Given that it's a liberal society, I respect people's decisions to do what they want. Yes, strong families are beneficial. Various alternative lifestyles get in the way of that. Eventually societies need to choose between maximizing personal freedom and having strong families. This is a tradeoff that most liberals have yet to really consider seriously.
This comment is a work of art.
I'm guessing the mentality behind this comment is, "oh my god, this guy dares to question transsexualism? that's eviiiilll".
The mentality behind it appears to me to be "that statement is such a blatant misdirection it is amazing".
The mentality is, "wait, why aren't you openly admitting you're evil?"
The more I think about it, the less sense this thread makes. You have openly admitted that you and your own private Idaho are not Cathedral2014!Good, loudly and clearly, for years. Why would I bother pretending like you're hiding it?
Exactly.