He then explores the idea of "separation of Church and State", and loosely defines Church as any organization or movement that specializes in telling people what to think – unfalsifiable hypotheses, unverifiable claims
That might be correct. It's an enormous mistake. You simply won't get people who are only capable of shallow engagement to level up into deep engagement by trolling them with agitprop and empty promises.
-
-
What's the best alternative? I have a sneaking suspicion that it might've possibly been the least bad of all the possible shitty outcomes
-
alternative to what? circulating shitty manifestos? the best alternative is not doing that at all. pamplets and libels don't create durable mass movements that make positive impacts. they create enraged torch-wielding mobs.
-
how to do persuasion at scale? you don't. persuasion isn't something that scales, as far as I can tell. real change is slow, inter-generational, and requires immense discipline and human-heartedness to do well.
-
I mean – if you were in Karl Marx's shoes in 1848, and you felt that capitalism was toxic and needed to be critiqued, and that everyone should know about it, how would you go about doing it? (I don't have a good answer, just curious for alternate takes)
-
I don't know what I would do. I think the history of Charles Darwin working on his manuscript for Origin of Species is a fascinating counter-example though. Also a revolutionary text but Darwin was painstakingly cautious.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
This was written in 2009, before social media started really kicking into overdrive. Wonder how Moldbug would revise his POV if he were 10 years younger, writing this today from 1st principles