Comments on: Quote notes (#64)

By: survivingbabel

survivingbabel — Fri, 28 Feb 2014 00:33:01 +0000

Arthur Chu and Jeopardy Well, I'm certainly adjusting my priors down on "this is real life."

By: DB

DB — Thu, 27 Feb 2014 00:09:56 +0000

Probably correct, but seastead-type exit is potentially useful for iteratively testing and demonstrating the viability of social arrangements that would appear impractical/unreasonable at first sight, without requiring explicit consent from terrestrial authorities. One just needs to have a plan that involves moving beyond the seastead later.

By: VXXC

VXXC — Wed, 26 Feb 2014 21:48:16 +0000

@Karl F Boetel

John Brown used a Broadsword. Personally. That type of Scotch-Irish guy.

By all means I think we should encourage progs to get their hands dirty. yep.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Wed, 26 Feb 2014 18:17:50 +0000

@Prussian Prince of Automata relevant: The Doctrine of Academic Freedom: Let’s give up on academic freedom in favor of justice

By: Karl F. Boetel

Karl F. Boetel — Wed, 26 Feb 2014 18:17:03 +0000

Rise of the New Abolitionists: We must free all Queer Women of Colour from mental enslavement by all white men everywhere through the unstoppable mindweapon of judgment — free them with fire and the sword, as ever. With Arthur Chu as the new John Brown.

By: Antisthenean

Antisthenean — Wed, 26 Feb 2014 15:56:35 +0000

“… what’s … terrifying to me is that [Mencius Moldbug] is a sign of things to come; certain objective processes within the early 21st century Western society have actually produced “neo-reaction”, and these processes have no reason to abate. … the world just felt very wrong all of a sudden.”

I’m so excited, and I just can’t hide it
I’m about to lose control, and I think I like it

By: Randy M

Randy M — Wed, 26 Feb 2014 15:00:26 +0000

This is a good post you should expand to a full essay.

By: Handle

Handle — Wed, 26 Feb 2014 11:56:34 +0000

@Konkvistador: Fine with me.

By: Konkvistador

Konkvistador — Wed, 26 Feb 2014 08:49:04 +0000

This seem worth stating and exploring in its own blog post, it is very closely related to the problem of value mutation I’ve been talking about. If you aren’t writing one would you mind me quoting you on mine?

By: Peter A. Taylor

Peter A. Taylor — Wed, 26 Feb 2014 05:43:07 +0000

You are reading more thought into my “model” than I put into it.

A clarification: High rollers get wealth and power from their political activity in addition to emotional gratification. The regular folk get only emotional gratification.

I want to explain the “justice” you see in Progressive causes as partly due to evolutionary psychology (maladaptive cognitive biases) and partly due to the power of propaganda to keep the “bootleggers” hidden behind the “Baptists”.

Is there really a bias in the direction of justice? I regard “social justice” as often as not as being a tool for promoting injustice. I regard “anti-bullying” as a style of bullying. People at my church have T-shirts that say “Standing on the side of love”, but if you read what some of them write on Facebook, you can practically smell the sulfur. Progressives always claim to be heroic underdogs, even when they are in uncontested control. It looks to me like a bunch of cognitive biases and propaganda.

To rephrase your question, who usually comes first, the bootleggers or the Baptists? Your second explanation (bootleggers) sounds better to me than your first, but I haven’t given it much thought, and I don’t think it matters. Baptists are the tools that the bootleggers have to work with. So the bootleggers’ schemes are always couched in terms that the Baptists like, regardless of whether the actual results are at all what the Baptists say they want, or whose idea it was.