Economic determinism refers specifically to the economic structure.

You missed roughly half of my sentence, and half of Multiheaded's. The other half was historical materialism- below is a quote from the wikipedia article

[Historical materialism] is a theory of socioeconomic development according to which changes in material conditions (technology and productive capacity) are the primary influence on how society and the economy are organised.

Your comment's style was suboptimal, technological determinism is different from economic determinism

I cannot see how it is different then a mix of historical materialism and economic determinism. Please elaborate.

and the neo-reactionary position is neither

Near as I can tell, the point is that Yvain and others (Ishaan specifically) are arguing that the reactionary position is wrong by asserting some form of historical materialism/economic determinism.

i.e. reactionaries cannot reverse the trend of history because the structures of governments are largely an adaptation to the technological world we live in. The reactionaries want to divorce the government/culture from technological progress and assert they can move independently.

The argument against them seems to be that government/culture may well be a response to the technological climate, and as such as technology changes so will the culture and government.

Would anyone care to dispute the object-level claim I made, or are people just spree-downvoting?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_determinism

Wikipedia seems to be pretty unambiguious about Marx being the first notable theorist here. It's not about "neutrality", there just isn't any evidence that this claim is mistaken.

How so? Someone involved with CFAR allegedly converted to Catholicism due to an argument-from-morality. Also, I know looking at the Biblical order to kill Isaac, and a general call to murder that I wasn't following, helped me to realize I didn't believe in God as such.

please consider converting your blog into a forum-blog in the style of LW.

This strikes me as somewhat technically difficult: AFAIK, there's no equivalent of Wordpress for Reddit's source code.

Disagree with simulatarians about whether or not we are simulated?

Hmm, that is a distinction that is pretty clear cut. However most people who believe in god believe that all people have ontologically basic souls. Therefore, since they think ontologically basic is nothing particularly special, I do not think that they would consider that a particularly important part of the definition of a god.

Possibly government spy agencies- almost everything is non-public, but they're known to have had some notable non-classified successes (e.g. RSA)
[...]
The US Navy has a perfect record of safety on its nuclear reactors (the USSR had 14 known accidents on a smaller fleet; there were also numerous civilian meltdowns)

First you acknowledge that there classification and then you say that the lack of public knowledge about US Navy reactor safety issues means that there weren't any?

My biggest concern with the label 'Bayesianism' isn't that it's named after the Reverend, nor that it's too mainstream. It's that it's really ambiguous.

For example, when Yvain speaks of philosophical Bayesianism, he means something extremely modest -- the idea that we can successfully model the world without certainty. This view he contrasts, not with frequentism, but with Aristotelianism ('we need certainty to successfully model the world, but luckily we have certainty') and Anton-Wilsonism ('we need certainty to successfully model the world, but we lack certainty'). Frequentism isn't this view's foil, and this philosophical Bayesianism doesn't have any respectable rivals, though it certainly sees plenty of assaults from confused philosophers, anthropologists, and poets.

If frequentism and Bayesianism are just two ways of defining a word, then there's no substantive disagreement between them. Likewise, if they're just two different ways of doing statistics, then it's not clear that any philosophical disagreement is at work; I might not do Bayesian statistics because I lack skill with R, or because I've never heard about it, or because it's not the norm in my department.

There's a substantive disagreement if Bayesianism means 'it would be useful to use more Bayesian statistics in science', and if frequentism means 'no it wouldn't!'. But this methodological Bayesianism is distinct from Yvain's philosophical Bayesianism, and both of those are distinct from what we might call 'Bayesian rationalism', the suite of mantras, heuristics, and exercises rationalists use to improve their probabilistic reasoning. (Or the community that deems such practices useful.) Viewing the latter as an ideology or philosophy is probably a bad idea, since the question of which of these tricks are useful should be relatively easy to answer empirically.

For which government are you counting that as an achievement?

Apparently the governments of "every other nation on earth". Which is odd, because I don't think my country achieved that. I can only assume countries which never had slavery are excluded.