The Allais "Paradox" and Scam Vulnerability by Karl Hammer is a much needed update for anyone who reads the OP.

With the exception of Michael Anissimov we moved to The Future Primaeval.

What happened there?

I think I learned what I needed to learn about Moldbug and neoreaction based on his reaction to Scott's post. "Intellectual progress" is when you engage with your critics.

The conflict between liberty and equality seems to dominate contemporary political philosophy, but do we all understand this conflict only happens when you already have fairly high levels of both? If the lack of liberty means someone gets to give you orders, you are clearly not equal with that someone, so you cannot achieve meaningful equality through repressing liberty. Conversely, why a purely wealth/income inequality is compatible with liberty, there is a more fundamental sense of equal respect or consideration that is a prerequisite for liberty. Liberty means a rich man may want to build a really glorious skyscraper but if the poor man's shack is in the way and he is unwilling to sell it, then he cannot. This only happens if we think the property, and through that, the choices, the goals, the aims of the big and the small people are equally important. Throughout most of history, we had the kind of hierarchies where neither liberty nor equality was high. And they occasionally come back, and besides, most of the planet is not there either.

I don't really know what follows from it. Perhaps, that when taking a global view, opponents could cooperate. Those who want liberty should understand that in most cultures it comes through and with more equality, and those who want equality should understand that in most cultures it comes through and with more liberty.

This illustrates the problem I have with how we leave boys' sexual development to the haphazard and just hope that they can figure it out somehow. What about the boys who can't or don't have these experiences and learn these skills at an appropriate age?

Sex And The Valley: Tech Guys Seek Expert Love Advice From Therapists

http://www.vocativ.com/culture/society/the-sex-therapists-of-silicon-valley/

“Dan” seems at first to perfectly embody that popular object of scorn these days in San Francisco: the privileged tech worker. He’s a developer-turned-manager at a thriving startup, the type of guy you would expect to see dodging protesters at a Google bus stop or evicting low-income tenants in order to build his dream condo. But beyond that veneer of untouchable privilege, there is a soft underbelly. He’s a 40-year-old virgin, and his troubles with women are bad enough that he’s sought out a sex therapist for help.

I suppose it could be so. It doesn't matter really, since the end result is the same. Still, I doubt it because Lesswrong is overwhelmingly left wing (and continues to be according to the polls - the right wing and NRx voices belong to just a few very prolific accounts.) And pretty much all the founding members of Lesswrong and, going back further, transhumanism in general, were of a certain sort which I hesitate to call "left" or "liberal" but... - socialists, libertarians, anarchists, all those were represented, and certainly many early users were hostile to social justice's extremeties, which is to be expected among smart people who are exposed to leftie stupidity much more often than other kinds of stupidity... but those were differences in implementation. We all essentially agreed on the core principles of egalitarianism and not hurting people, and agreed that prejudice against race and gender expression is bad (which was an entirely separate topic from whether they're equal in aptitude), and that conservatives, nationalists, and those sort of people were fundamentally wrongheaded in some way. It wasn't controversial, just taken for granted that anyone who had penetrated this far into the dialogue believed that these things to be true.... in the same sense that we continue to take for granted that no one here believes in a literal theist God. (And right now, I know many former users have retreated into other more obscure spin off forums, and everything I said here pretty much remains true in those forums and blogs.)

But I'm less interested in who broke the walled garden / started eternal september / whatever you want to call it (after all, I'm not mad that they came here, I got to learn about an interesting philosophy) and more interested in the meta-level principle: per my understanding of Neoreactionary philosophy, when one finds oneself in the powerful majority, one aught to just go ahead and exert that power and not worry about the underdog (which I still don't agree with but I'm not sure why). And, homogeneity is often more valuable than diversity in many cases, that's something I've actually kind of accepted.

I suppose it could be so. It doesn't matter really, since the end result is the same. Still, I doubt it because Lesswrong is overwhelmingly left wing (and continues to be according to the polls - the right wing and NRx voices belong to just a few very prolific accounts.) And pretty much all the founding members of Lesswrong and, going back further, transhumanism in general, were of a certain sort which I hesitate to call "left" or "liberal" but... - socialists, libertarians, anarchists, all those were represented, and certainly many early users were hostile to social justice's extremeties, which is to be expected among smart people who are exposed to leftie stupidity much more often than other kinds of stupidity... but those were differences in implementation. We all essentially agreed on the core principles of egalitarianism and not hurting people, and agreed that prejudice against race and gender expression is bad (which was an entirely separate topic from whether they're equal in aptitude), and that conservatives, nationalists, and those sort of people were fundamentally wrongheaded in some way. It wasn't controversial, just taken for granted that anyone who had penetrated this far into the dialogue believed that these things to be true.... in the same sense that we continue to take for granted that no one here believes in a literal theist God. (And right now, I know many former users have retreated into other more obscure spin off forums, and everything I said here pretty much remains true in those forums and blogs.)

But I'm less interested in who broke the walled garden / started eternal september / whatever you want to call it (after all, I'm not mad that they came here, I got to learn about an interesting philosophy) and more interested in the meta-level principle: per my understanding of Neoreactionary philosophy, when one finds oneself in the powerful majority, one aught to just go ahead and exert that power and not worry about the underdog (which I still don't agree with but I'm not sure why). And, homogeneity is often more valuable than diversity in many cases, that's something I've actually kind of accepted.

What homogenized monoculture?

In that specific sentence, I was actually referring to Lesswrong as it was before neoreactionaries became a Big Thing. Pretty much everyone agreed on everything back, and all disagreements were highly productive disagreements in which people changed their mind.

After the NRx came in we've had useless arguments, downvote stalkers, and so on really hurting the signal to noise ratio.

(By the way, that sentence is not an attack on NRx, but a proof of one of its principles - that homogeneity is useful. I'm also harking back to a golden age. My entire attitude right now feels a lot like the Shield of Conservatism, only it's not protecting the conservatives.)

The intro to the rationalist neoreactionary blog the Future Primaeval sort of captures this:

It has not been apparent until now, but this is actually a group blog, composed of a small group of people with similar ideas which are very different from everyone else's. For various reasons, we've decided to leave our previous projects and start a new blog dedicated to theoretical and practical inquiry into lifestyle, politics, philosophy, and social science. Welcome.

As thinkers, most of us got our start in a community dedicated to the art of human rationality. There we crystallized our appreciation for reason, evidence, and awareness of one's own capabilities and limitations as a human thinker. We came to believe that there are better ways to think, and began to strive to train ourselves in them. We've since moved beyond that foundation, throwing out and replacing pieces of the philosophy as they were found faulty, placing a greater emphasis on political ideology and well-tuned intuitive judgement over feigned neutrality and formal methods. Still, the core commitment to sanity guides us.

In our studies, this commitment to sanity eventually came into conflict with the acceptable range of ideas on politics, social science, history, and lifestyle. The truth, we discovered, was generally ancient, harsh, inevitable, and to the extent that it impinges on the human political spectrum, very, very right wing. These are not the ideas that ingratiate one with the fashionable set, so we keep them to ourselves except among trusted friends or under the cover of anonymity, but our values demand that we face the truth, and speak it.

So this is The Future Primaeval; our attempt at unearthing, documenting, and integrating into our lifestyles and models of the world the timeless truth that lurks beyond history, that always comes back to collect from those who deny it, and that will shape the future of human civilization.

We will occasionally deal with matters traditionally called politics, such as the analysis of human institutions, contemporary social movements, and controversial hot topics, but make no mistake, we are not here to influence the next election or to have the King's opinions for him. Our ambitions are both bigger and smaller than that; to train in the difficult art of sanity, to develop and study the science and myth of human civilization, and to apply these insights to our own lives and domains, so that we may seek the favour and avoid the wrath of the Gods.

We will strive to be consistently clear, insightful, useful, and correct, if not always original or timely. We welcome serious criticism and pointers to things we may not have considered, so please do get in touch. Some of our previous work meets the purpose we've set for ourselves here, so it will be polished up and reposted in time. We hope that you will get as much out of reading this blog as we do writing it.

With the exception of Michael Anissimov we moved to The Future Primaeval.

What happened there?