Alexander is wrong, Anissimov is annoying

Scott Alexander is one of the best bloggers out there at missing the point.  For his spectacular ability, he gets hundreds of comments in a few hours.  Anissimov also misses the point, but doesn’t get comments because he doesn’t allow comments.

This is the third time he’s said something retarded.  The first time was his communist Evola quotes.  The second time was when, at the beginning of 2015, he brought up the /pol/-tier Frankfurt School conspiracy theory that /pol/ was posting about at least two years ago.  This time, he’s publishing an ebook, which casually includes the claim that the world is less violent now than it has been in the past.

It’s subversive when Steven Pinker says it.  It may or may not be subversive when Scott Alexander says it.  To us, it contradicts the prophet Moldbug (pbuh)

The standard of public safety is independent of the threat. Whether your rights are violated by an agent of the King or an independent criminal, you experience the same violation. The democratic failure to eradicate crime is thus best defined as a form of state terror, with the same unlovely motivations always found in a government which torments its subjects. (Crime in Britain, for instance, increased by two orders of magnitude in the last century, as that country terminated its ancient aristocracy and entered its present democratic tailspin.)

or

The idea of asymmetric war – a war in which different sides play by different rules – is one of the sickest jokes of the twentieth century. If you could explain this concept to Emerich de Vattel, he’d be retching for hours with awful, agonizing laughter. Washcorp can stop playing this game any time it decides it’s done.

or

Given that the word “independent” is composed of the particle “in-“, meaning “not,” and the word “dependent,” meaning “dependent,” you might think people would blush a little when they tell us, for example, that “Zimbabwe became independent in 1980.” But no. Over the centuries, they have simply lost all shame.

or

No police officer ever stole my bike.

or

By setting up an ideal of righteousness that only divine rule can achieve, Rawls supplies the perfect distraction to help his readers forget that in reality, men are governed only by men, and history knows only two kinds of government: those based on law, and those based on violence.

I mean, I can do this all day.  Moldbug repeatedly pointed out the violence inherent to the system.  So what is Anissimov doing?  Who is he trying to fool?

Alexander does it because he wants to suggest subversive things.  Look at his latest.  It denies that IQ means anything or that one’s bloodline means anything, while saying that IQ is 50-80% heritable, something that Wikipedia grudgingly accepts, and we need to read Gregory Cochran to understand.

Alexander is too privileged to be interested in rocking the boat.  He wishes we would go away, but, if we did, the progressives would dox him, and he would be unemployable.  He knows it, and after a particularly subversive article, he wrote about how the only thing he really wants to do is be a doctor and get people to donate to charity. ( http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/19/nobody-is-perfect-everything-is-commensurable/ ).  But then he goes back to saying subversive things ( http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/01/24/perceptions-of-required-ability-act-as-a-proxy-for-actual-required-ability-in-explaining-the-gender-gap/ ).

Alexander has an audience: progressives who aren’t quite sure about the contradictions in their ideology.  Alexander thus knows what to write: subtly subversive things that miss the point in novel and spectacular ways, to both push and subvert progressivism.

Anissimov is supposedly writing to neoreactionaries.  He is actually writing the kind of nonsense that would have been taken as subversive in Moldbug’s time, but he’s doing a worse job of it than Moldbug, and on the Internet, words don’t just rot.  There are already too many articles and books, so unless you have something interesting to say, you can help by not publishing.  Unless you’re trying to lead a movement.  Movements need content.  DailyStormer has lots of content.

Social Matter has the problem that it doesn’t know what its audience is either.  Theden has an audience; pretty much the same audience as DailyStormer.

Jim’s audience is neoreactionaries.  His goal is to advance neoreactionary ideology faster than DailyStormer can use it to make a socialist revolution.  Back when there was a Radish Magazine, its audience was also neoreactionaries.  We can tell because Radish never said anything disingenuous or assumed that the reader needed much persuading or babbled about current events or irrelevant books he read to take up space.

I don’t know who Nick Land is or why he keeps alternatively posting retarded things with okay things, but I guess he’s just a harmless crank.

Bryce LaLiberte has recently discovered that writing lots of stuff is different from writing interesting stuff.  So he has promised to put only interesting things on his blog.

I also promise to only post true and interesting things.  Which is why I have a bunch of half-baked ideas in the drafts folder, never to be spoken of.

Meanwhile, Jim and Gregory Cochran keep saying these things… I don’t know how they do it, and so frequently, too.

Advertisements

13 responses to “Alexander is wrong, Anissimov is annoying”

  1. aramaxima says :

    >This time, he’s publishing an ebook, which casually includes the claim that the world is less violent now than it has been in the past.

    Quote/source? Anissimov has explicitly argued against this in the past.

    >Alexander is too privileged to be interested in rocking the boat. He wishes we would go away, but, if we did, the progressives would dox him, and he would be unemployable. He knows it, and after a particularly subversive article, he wrote about how the only thing he really wants to do is be a doctor and get people to donate to charity.

    Wait, what? NRx is keeping proggies from doxing Alexander?

    >Anissimov is supposedly writing to neoreactionaries. He is actually writing the kind of nonsense that would have been taken as subversive in Moldbug’s time, but he’s doing a worse job of it than Moldbug, and on the Internet, words don’t just rot. There are already too many articles and books, so unless you have something interesting to say, you can help by not publishing. Unless you’re trying to lead a movement. Movements need content. DailyStormer has lots of content.

    What if his audience is Alexander’s progressives?

    >Social Matter has the problem that it doesn’t know what its audience is either.

    I can confirm.

    • peppermint says :

      Against Democracy, chapter 1, paragraph 1

      Countries are getting richer, millions are being lifted out of poverty and illiteracy, and each day we get closer to cures for diseases like cancer. On average, the world is getting less violent overall.

      Anissimov is a moron. Does he intend to bring up the shocking levels of violence that democracy causes later on and hope that people have forgotten the fourth sentence in his book? The case against democracy is that it incentivizes bad behavior. Democracy is the ruling ideology. If there is not bad behavior, why would anyone care to read a criticism of democracy in the first place? The best thing about Anissimov’s book is that no one will read past the first paragraph.

      Alexander would be destroyed if the bright-eyed idealists at gettingracistsfired.tumblr.com didn’t have anyone else to destroy. He barely needs to be doxxed.

      • aramaxima says :

        I completely glazed over that sentence somehow. It sounds like he’s reading out progressive shibboleths to “grease the pan for the cooking” as it were, but he forgot he doesn’t agree with them.

  2. Samson says :

    Alexander is a full Jew — unlike mischlings Moldbug and Radish — and a sexual deviant (“heteronormative asexual”), so he’s incentivized against reaching the logical, non-Progressive conclusions of the undisputed facts. He should be applauded for going as far as he did. I predict that at some point he’ll go too far, receive backlash from the Cathedral, and will have to choose between devoting himself indisputably to Thoughtcrime or to Orthodoxy. He’ll probably choose Orthodoxy because people are not inclined to oppose those who pay their salaries.

    • peppermint7889 says :

      His blogging career is how he got in that transman’s pants, and getting lots of page views and comments feels good. That’s his incentive to post.

      His incentive to post bullshit is that it’s what his audience wants.

      So we don’t need him to be a Jew to explain his behavior here.

      As to whether the progressives will take him back, I think we all know the answer to that. If the progressives win this culture war, they’ll probably come for him before they come for me, because I’m a bit harder to dox and less consequential by page views.

    • aramaxima says :

      “Heteronormative asexual” — involuntary celibate?

      • peppermint says :

        maybe it is to tell people that his lack of sexual relationships prior to his current polyamorous transthingy, and his acceptance of his transthingy’s polyamory, isn’t because he’s incompetent or too bogged down with ideology to be competent. But from a Game theory point of view, announcing yourself as asexual is a way to broadcast your aloofness.

      • aramaxima says :

        Not sure about a game theory perspective, but from a Balkan social dynamics perspective, announcing yourself as asexual is a great way to broadcast your bitterly-accepted sexual poverty.

      • Steve Johnson says :

        If you have any doubt as to whether Scott is coming to this from sexual weakness or strength read Ozy’s guest post about Heartiste on his site.

        Specifically where she mentions that she’s BPD, has been fucked by more than two dozen guys, and makes her living as a cam whore.

      • peppermint7889 says :

        Scott probably isn’t doing as well as he could be, but the question is whether *you* could win with a line like ‘heteronormative asexual’, or rather, whether deep down inside in places he doesn’t talk about at parties he thinks it’s a winning line. Even the most Bayesian of rationalists can’t totally suppress every instinct.

  3. SanguineEmpiricist says :

    This article is written in a rather confused tone.

Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  1. Moldbug Quotes | Reaction Times - February 2, 2015
  2. Lightning Round – 2015/02/04 | Free Northerner - February 4, 2015

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: