The point was SSCers reacting. Vance being an SSCer isn’t notable as he’s a Thiel creature. SSCers being confronted with the eyeshadowed mirror that is Vance is much more interesting because they spend a lot of time being nominally not exactly what Vance is.

life outcomes related to cognition

My sides.

Oof, that slid right past me. I think I skimmed some of the parts the article told me it was ok to skim if I wanted to.

This is actually a really damning article. Despite the carefully constructed facade, Scott simply isn’t curious about anything that might broaden his world.

<I ain’t reading all that.jpg>

Maybe he realized it wasn’t important after all.

He’s exactly the Gilfoyle looking mother fucker you think he is.

Eagerly awaiting the writeup.

good writer

I reject the implication that Slatescott is a good writer.

Some right-wingers have responded to the piece, but their responses are mostly “but I like being bad and cruel” - which seems to prove Bulldog’s point.

I think we can do better - that it’s possible to make a case against “slave morality” that doesn’t rely on being pro-badness and cruelty.

Fuck me, you’re making me read Slatescott again. I can’t wait to see how he will case for badness and cruelty without relying on being pro badness and cruelty.

Skimmed a bit up to the discussion of architecture not being as impressive nowadays or something.

Ok here we go:

Tate has, in some sense, many good qualities. He’s strong, athletic, and motivated. He earned tens of millions of dollars through hustle and hard work. He’s charismatic and compelling and, before his arrest, was one of the Internet’s most iconic influencers. I think master morality has to approve of all these things.

“Hustle and hard work”? That’s what we’re gonna call being a sex trafficker?

Hand tipped here:

I would like to end up with an overall negative view of Tate. And if I do a simple calculation, (virtues - vices), then it seems like if his nonmoral virtues were strong enough, they could overcome the moral vices. If Tate was a really really good kickboxer, he might still end up in the black. It seems much more intuitive to say that no amount of nonmoral virtues can make up for his moral vices. But now we’re back at the full slave moralist package again! Some “compromise”!

If we accept that there are some vices that cannot be made up for by virtues, we might need to cancel someone. People might need to be held responsible for the things they do. So Scott cannot accept it. There has to be a way to let the baddies in as long as they’re actually doing important work.

You can argue “master morality is about being strong and good; slave morality is just about preserving your pathetic little feelings”. But most of life is people’s pathetic little feelings. People have proven over and over again that their decisions - about what to do, what to buy, who to vote for, even what to die for - depend more on what lets them feel dignity and self-respect than on any purely material considerations.

Slight of hand: now slave morality is all about feelings and master morality is about material needs. What the heck? We established that slave morality was based on the idea that masters inflicting real hardships on their peasants was bad, didn’t we? You could make the same argument about Scott morality (as described above) because the objective would be to allow you to feel good about supporting people who do bad things as long as they also do good things.

And speaking of slight of hand, this is going to be my pull quote:

Hanania is terrible at being right-wing.

It’s rdrama, they’re in another league of weird. Fun fact: TheMotte is using a fork of rdrama’s code.

they [nrx and LW] clearly are completely different groups who only party and fuck around together

Or at least not provably not insane.

The article on GamerGate is also awesome, but my favorite part is probably that it contains the very best article about Trump you’re ever going to read.

Especially since he posted on TheMotte that the connection between NRX and LW was quote ‘fabricated.’

fabricating ties between LessWrong and neoreaction

Lmao

I knew the yarvin afterparty fact would come in handy later

Why did evolution give most males so much testosterone instead of making low-T nerds

Dude needs to crack open a biology textbook and read up on the rest of the animal kingdom. The Winestein-ian attempts to explain every facet of human behavior and physiology in terms of it helping humans survive is just dead wrong.

His initial premise is so damned stupid that there’s probably nothing to salvage so I’m not reading it. He gives zero credence to the idea that whatever metric he grabbed for men should be a linear correlation to IQ might… not be? Then ploughs on with an explanation that allows him to do Trans discourse. Fuck off with that.

Here’s an alternate theory: you only know about out trans folks. Trans folks will only come out if they think they’re likely to not be beaten to death. Therefore you will see more trans folks at IT jobs and fewer at construction sites, because IT workers sit in chairs all day and many couldn’t beat someone to death even if they tried. Plus having lots of money helps insulate you from the risk of ending up living on the fucking street. Seriously if this guy just thought about it for like ten seconds he’d realize his data was skewed.

Also, anyone who’s ever experienced being a teenage boy probably understands exactly how dumb Testosterone makes you firsthand, complete with specific stories.

It’s probably half the training set, considering it’s based on scraped web and of all the web, there is the most web of internet atheist debating. Acres and acres of such web.

How much do I need to smoke to get in this level of naval gazing?