Most of the reluctance is because it would produce prodigious amounts of beef if written in a way that reflected how I really feel about the subject.
-
-
Beef from truth is nutritious Beef from confusion makes us all bloated
1 reply 1 retweet 7 likes -
And that is precisely why I will ultimately end up having to write it, yes.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @jd_pressman @michaelcurzi and
One spoiler is that I think SSC had a huge influence which isn't acknowledged nearly enough. If you binge the best SSC essays back to back (as I did to correct their typos and format them) you realize a lot of SSC is this slow deconstruction of 'rationality' in the EY sense.
2 replies 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @jd_pressman @michaelcurzi and
Another spoiler is I think there's a motte and bailey going on where you have 'postrat is about the stuff Chapman talks about' discourse that is fake and then this weirder discourse where postrat is a bohemian hideout for ex-LWers of various flavors, which feels more accurate.
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @jd_pressman @michaelcurzi and
John David Pressman Retweeted QC
This can be split into several camps. There's the QC thing which, I frankly feel like a lot of (but not QC himself) is people coming into LW with Dawkins new atheist memes, pattern matching EY to them, getting talked out of Dawkins and then blaming EY.https://twitter.com/QiaochuYuan/status/1353841026633371648 …
John David Pressman added,
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @jd_pressman @michaelcurzi and
Then there's like your (eigenrobot)'s thing which is basically grillpill with extra steps.pic.twitter.com/nKMtADAltM
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @jd_pressman @michaelcurzi and
Then there's this Crowley mysticism thing where you LARP believing in magick but not like, Believing In Magick and you need to strike this tightrope balance between being hip without coming off like an actual maniac. Kinda like Jack Parsons but less coolhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcOHiGonWwU …
3 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @jd_pressman @michaelcurzi and
Then, finally, you get to the actually serious philosophers who just have some kind of beef with rationality in the Extropian-Bayesian formulation. Some of this is Buddhists like
@nosilverv, or monotheists(?) like@michaelcurzi. Lots of 'embodiment' and anti-induction discourse.1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @jd_pressman @michaelcurzi and
In terms of explaining what this is or where it came from, that's kind of difficult because it's frankly a mess. So the easiest way to actually explain this would probably just be to get empirical-historical about exactly how these elements fit into adjacent subcultural currents.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes
I can just write everything down and give it to you to be opened in a decade when we're all either dead or too powerful to be affected by an essay
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.