/ratanon/ - Rationalists Anonymous

>Encyclopedia dramatica

Is that still a thing? What year do you think this is?

Are you the guy who posted Aaronson on /cow/, OP? The reasons LW isn't all over ED are that

1. ED was dead at the peak of LW's popularity

2. ED is still dead

3. LW drama tends to be sad and esoteric, but not particular lulzy, and ED has no David Gerard to force it.

You can become its David Gerard if you wish, but I don't see why anyone would want to.

>>13237

I'm still hoping we can push Gerard to suicide over the fact he was aware of Bitcoin in 2011 and yet rejected it and missed out on being a multimillionaire.

>>13235

As >>13236 and >>13237 have already pointed out, ED is dead

I'm sure the chucklefucks over at Kiwifarms would find Yudkowsky hilarious though

>>13259

There actually is a thread there. No one has updated it with all of the new happenings.

David Gerard spends his twilight years butthurt online against teenage statistics nerds, because older brothers of them posted in 2009 on a website more popular.

Of course, you understand that he is a loser, yes?

Yet, you want to imitate - no, exceed - his example, starting an argument with a dead woman …

If absolutely someone must write an ED article, let me recommend a subject - the most pathetic rationalist, obsessed with all sorts of petty affairs, cowardly beyond belief! He is the OP of this thread.

>>13364

Fuck the libtard moralistic witchhunts.

>>13365

I find it harder and harder to care about the moralistic witchhunts, if they want to become a joke that's up to them. But it's shameless how they pretend to be concerned about academic rigor.

>>13364

>You're out of line, Noah! Reason and rationality say that all humans are identical on the inside!

>t. Cathedral

Bluepill me on this. Because from my perspective it looks like a bunch of cultural elites aggressively enforcing uniformity in the dubious narrative they present to society.

>>13373

Yeah, you've redpilled yourself too much. Don't attribute to conspiracy what can be attributed to individuals signaling wokeness.

Step 1: The kind of racism that wants slavery and lynchings and segregation (hereafter referred to as Bad Racism) is bad.

2: People won't like you if you're openly Badly Racist.

3: Bad Racists adapt their outward opinions to be more acceptable, as one does.

4: When someone says something along the lines of "I have nothing against black people, I just think they're genetically inferior" it's probably someone with worse opinions prettying them up, and people catch on and no longer tolerate that softer opinion either.

5: Run the euphemism treadmill a few more cycles. Now, no matter how nuanced your point is, there are still likely to be more Bad Racists making it than people making it earnestly. Even many appeals to free speech become soiled.

It's impossible to reliably distinguish an honest signal from a dishonest signal, so anything that could plausibly be said by a Bad Racist trying to stealthily persuade people is assumed to come from a Bad Racist.

When /pol/ tries to spread "stealth red pills", or the text "it's okay to be white", they're directly contributing to this.

Statements aren't inherently racist, from a social perspective, they have a certain probability of being produced by a racist trying to promote racism - and if that probability is high enough then you can get woke points by denouncing it even if the naive interpretation is acceptable.

And they aren't trying to enforce uniformity either. There are many woke opinions that deny uniformity. That means a lot of woke opinions are mutually incompatible, but the thing they have in common is not a common theoretical principle, but that they wouldn't be endorsed by a typical racist or misogynist.

"There is no neurological difference between males and females" and "trans people's brains tend to be more similar to those of the gender they identify as" are incompatible opinions, but both of them are broadly acceptable because /pol/ would never, ever hold them.

(Disclaimer: I'm a libtard)

>>13375

Your description is fully compatible with the concept of the Cathedral. Moldbug doesn't model it as a conspiracy; Scott even emphasizes this in his "nutshell" post.

>slavery and lynchings and segregation

One of these things is not like the others. If the IQ differences are real, segregation is Neutral Racism or maybe Good Racism overall because it results in essentially racial economic protectionism.

>>13375

I agree with your explanation. In my post I implicitly suggested an intentional conspiracy, but that was poor wording/tone more than a reflection of what I think.

I don't think anyone who invokes "the Cathedral", myself included, believes that it's a literal conspiracy making coordinated efforts to deceive the public. A description by Zero HP Lovecraft: "the cathedral is a decentralized conspiracy of leftward-ratcheting signal wars, in which everyone defects against decency and morality in order to become holier than their neighbor". "Leftward ratcheting signal war" seems like a solid description of the process you described.

I've previously been skeptical that a "decentralized conspiracy" could be effective and converge on a single narrative, if it wasn't approximately the truth. I'm seeing that open letter as an example of how it can happen.

>>13376

>>13377

Fair enough. "Enforcing uniformity" pattern matched to conspiracy theories, but it shouldn't have.

The main relevant part of that post is that uniformity is a reaction to racism, and only one reaction out of a set of several. It's not usually enforced, except as a pretense.

>>13378

But what's the pretense here? Are all those professors who signed the letter actually indifferent to whether he gets the position? Even if so, the signalling war is likely having the very real effect of obstructing unorthodox research.

Is your stance that it's less of a problem than enabling Bad Racists?

>>13379

Pretense wasn't the right word. Maybe justification?

>actually indifferent

Signaling is often heartfelt even if it's caused by more cynical incentives. Probably a few of the people who signed it were indifferent, but not most people.

>Even if so, the signalling war is likely having the very real effect of obstructing unorthodox research.

I think so.

>Is your stance that it's less of a problem than enabling Bad Racists?

I don't know. I don't think there's a reason why signaling wars couldn't be more trouble than they're worth. Maybe they usually are.

I don't know how large and how important an area of unorthodox research ends up obstructed in practice.

It could be that obstructing it doesn't have a positive effect at all. It could be that obstructing it is what's keeping open Bad Racism from gaining legitimacy. I can't think of a good way to test that.

I would prefer it wasn't obstructed, but that's supported more by the feeling that knowledge is good than by evidence. I'm more describing it than justifying it.

>>13375

>Step 1: The kind of racism that wants slavery and lynchings and segregation (hereafter referred to as Bad Racism) is bad.

Muh morality. From a global point of view I fail to see how the fuck slavery and lynchings are even related to muh wayccism. We all have ancestors who were slaveholders and ancestors who were slaves. So what? Lynchings happened a lot in the past and we don't see them today in most of the world.

As for segregation I think most Germans are segregated from most Japanese and vice versa. I think both are happy and rich any way. "Segregation" literally fucking means..uh..having a border.

>When /pol/ tries to spread "stealth red pills", or the text "it's okay to be white", they're directly contributing to this.

>Statements aren't inherently racist, from a social perspective, they have a certain probability of being produced by a racist trying to promote racism - and if that probability is high enough then you can get woke points by denouncing it even if the naive interpretation is acceptable.

>And they aren't trying to enforce uniformity either. There are many woke opinions that deny uniformity. That means a lot of woke opinions are mutually incompatible, but the thing they have in common is not a common theoretical principle, but that they wouldn't be endorsed by a typical racist or misogynist.

But they are already against facts.

>"There is no neurological difference between males and females" and "trans people's brains tend to be more similar to those of the gender they identify as" are incompatible opinions, but both of them are broadly acceptable because /pol/ would never, ever hold them.

Lmao. That has already become a new tactic by the so-called alt-right..I mean more accurately people who simply want a white Japan. What if the alt-right literally tries to talk about..uh..everything. Are you, da mainstream society, going to ban all of them?

>>13376

>One of these things is not like the others. If the IQ differences are real, segregation is Neutral Racism or maybe Good Racism overall because it results in essentially racial economic protectionism.

Segregation is just the first step. The true policy implication of HBD is the necessity of eugenics and settler colonialism in Africa.

>>13366

>I find it harder and harder to care about the moralistic witchhunts, if they want to become a joke that's up to them. But it's shameless how they pretend to be concerned about academic rigor.

Right. Soc libs are now basically enemies of rationality and science. For the love of truth they need to be booted from STEM asap.

>>13382

the true implication of HBD is the necessity to open free genehacking clinics on every street corner of the world.

y'know, to give true equality of chances to everyone

>>13385

Why do people think normies are going to use gene hacking to solve societal ills instead of feeding Moloch? We're going to end up with hella peacock tails as we gene hack ourselves for marginal advantage at the games we actually care about.

That said, I'm looking forward to having my scrupulousness edited out. I'm looking forward to being effective instead of an altruist.

>>13386

i'm not too worried what would happen, because Good Traits are correlated af and at least we'll get rid of stupidity. way GCTAs work, what'll happen is that people will get bundles of generally good genes even if what they want spliced in their kids is just better health.. hell, even that is a neat advance.

Also, everywhere but especially in Universalistan, THE trait for "good outcomes in life" is intelligence, and the ones with parents at least bright enough to ask for that will simply do to the others something between what we did to the horses in the early 20th century and to the other apes before that. (i.e. keep a few of them for entertainment purposes and reduce their ecological niche by horrific amounts through habitat destruction, respectively); moreover, intelligence gets to full genetic potential when it is combined with good health anyway, so.

as for altruism, sorry but no, there are actually good self-interest reasons to be so: the positive externalities do accrue benefits to you too, and, although of course excessive scrupulosity is excessive, it's still better than selfishness and sociopathy (which would make life more inefficient for everyone because then everyone would have to check everything all the time for defectbottery - imagine an ancapsistan where you'd having to check five private labels on every food you buy just to make sure that the manufacturer hasn't replaced 1% of the product by weight with lead or something, and then extend that to every interaction with everything and everyone - or choosing to count on luck to protect you through herd immunity)

also sorry to say but past basically CONCEPTION, it's too late to genehack you. It's for your kids (or clones).

>>13381

>From a global point of view

We're not talking about a global point of view. We're talking about the US, where slavery was deeply tied to race and still affects it, culturally and maybe economically.

>"Segregation" literally fucking means..uh..having a border.

That's not what racial segregation is. Certainly not in the context of American politics.

>But they are already against facts.

And that's bad, but all ideologies are against certain facts. It arises from mundane forces.

>>13388

> >From a global point of view

>We're not talking about a global point of view. We're talking about the US, where slavery was deeply tied to race and still affects it, culturally and maybe economically.

We have to take a global point of view because more samples are always good. One common SJW trick is pretending that there exists nothing outside America.

OK. Here is my question: Why the fuck isn't Poland a FUBAR country? Tell me..they could have declared that due to muh gnatzees and muh commiez Poland is terminally fucked up and can't be unfucked. Yet Poland is not FUBAR at all.

How bad can muh slabery be compared to actual partial genocide of Poles?

> >"Segregation" literally fucking means..uh..having a border.

>That's not what racial segregation is. Certainly not in the context of American politics.

That's literally what it fucking means. There is a border between China and Russia and that's essentially segregation statistically speaking. People seem to be fine with that though. The existence of such a border hasn't caused either country to be FUBAR.

> >But they are already against facts.

>And that's bad, but all ideologies are against certain facts. It arises from mundane forces.

Then we need to reject the crowd. The crowd is almost always wrong on everything beyond everyday life.

>>13384

>the true implication of HBD is the necessity to open free genehacking clinics on every street corner of the world.

>y'know, to give true equality of chances to everyone

That's not how nature works. Might is right.

>>13389

>We have to take a global point of view because more samples are always good. One common SJW trick is pretending that there exists nothing outside America.

We're talking about an American cultural issue. Pointing out that that issue doesn't exist in certain other cultures doesn't help. It exists in that one.

This is not a discussion about slavery in general. The discussion can be generalized, but you'd have to generalize it by talking about signaling and cultural norms in general, not by talking about slavery in general.

>That's literally what it fucking means. There is a border between China and Russia and that's essentially segregation statistically speaking. People seem to be fine with that though. The existence of such a border hasn't caused either country to be FUBAR.

This is what was meant by "segregation" in that context, and what would broadly be understood to be meant with the word "segregation" in that context:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation

You seem to be using another definition to derive a meaning that has nothing to do with this discussion.

>>13391

From a cognitive point of view there are four types of societies, uniformly high-IQ societies, uniformly low-IQ societies, societies with a high-IQ majority and a low-IQ minority and societies with a high-IQ minority and a low-IQ majority. In the first two types there is also an issue of tribal homogeneity vs diversity for the latter two types are by definition tribally diverse. So essentially we have six types of societies. Moreover globally the world should also be considered a mega-society with a fairly small high-IQ population and a large low-IQ population, sort of like Brazil.

A uniformly high-IQ society is of course the best. Typical examples are Iceland and Japan. Such societies tend to be rich and developed. Crime rates are very low and quality of life tends to be very high. For example Iceland has a life expectancy of 82.47 years (2016) and Japan has a life expectancy of 83.98 years (2016).

There is of course also an issue of whether such a society is tribally homogeneous or diverse. Here "tribe" can be race, ethnicity, religion etc. What matters is not the actual genetic or cultural differences between tribes. Instead it is the amount of tribalism that divides a society. For example Poles and Russians are simply considered whites in America and their descendants may intermarry. Hence in America Poles and Russians living together is not a problem. On the other hand in Poland Poles are natives while Russians are not. Moreover Poles fear that Russia may annex Poland again. Hence Poles and Russians coexisting in Poland can be problematic. Similarly whether the religious differences between Protestants and Catholics matter depends on whether people at that moment feel whether they matter. For example in Northern Ireland it matters even today while in many societies it does not matter.

Empires need to be tribally diverse while demotic states need to be tribally homogeneous. Democracy and tribal diversity are inherently incompatible for tribalism tends to destroy the former and create a Ottoman millet-type system.

>>13391

Let's use "Japan Type" or "Iceland Type" to denote tribally homogeneous high-IQ societies and "German Empire Type" or "Silicon Valley Type" to denote tribally diverse high-IQ societies. The former has much higher asabiyyah and has less social issues compared to the latter. Moreover the former type is in no danger of tribal civil wars while the latter may degenerate into such wars. However the latter is often better in innovation, tend to be more business-friendly and has ideological variance. Whether one chooses the former or the latter is up to personal choice. Reds obviously tend to prefer the former and Greys tend to prefer the latter. SVT societies can also be converted to JT societies by Czech-Slovak type splitting. In some cases it is a good idea. After all a high-IQ tribe can take care of its own affairs and maintain a high QOL. At least splitting is unlikely to cause serious harm.

That's pretty much the end of good and possibly good societies. The rest of the societies on the list are necessarily not-so-good or awful societies.

Some societies are diverse with a high-IQ tribe majority and a small low-IQ tribe minority. The best example for this kind of societies is America. Such societies are fairly common among Anglo settler colonies and more recently due to mass immigration, some European ones such as France and UK as well. Let's use the phrase "United States Type" to denote such societies. The most important property of UST societies is unsafety. Almost no true UST can actually be entirely safe, ever. As long as a society is UST no matter whether it is racially integrationist or racially segregationist it can never truly be safe simply because there is always a low-IQ underclass there. Tribalism tends to be rampant in UST societies and no amount of affirmative action can fix the problem of the underclass. In UST there is often a small amount of the territories that are no-go areas for the high-IQ majority that are basically lawless. UST societies inherently suffer from extreme inequality simply due to their cognitive diversity which inherently can not be fixed unless there is serious IQ-boosting.

UST societies are mostly at least functional even though they have dysfunctional parts and are inherently perpetually bogged down in tribal conflicts. The rest of the societies are even worse.

Some societies have a large low-IQ tribe majority and a small high-IQ tribe minority. Such societies tend to look very weird. The best example of such societies is Mexico though most of Latin America and many other societies have roughly similar properties. So let's use the phrase "Mexico Type" to denote such societies. Mexico-type societies tend to have a small high-functioning minority who either dominate the economy of the society simply because they are high-functioning or dominate both the economy and politics of the society. The high-functioning minority tends to be self-segregated, tends to have relatively high quality of life while the rest of the society has relatively low quality of life. Persecution of such a high-functioning minority due to jealousy tends to be rampant. Similarly the high-functioning tribes tend to dislike the low-functioning majorities and sometimes stable minority rule is possible. Most of the society tends to be very unsafe. Only a few rich people live in heavily guarded mansions. But at least such societies are more functional than the last two types of societies. MT societies tend to be either socialist or have extreme inequalities simply because they are cognitively diverse. They also often move from one to the other which can not really improve them.

Now we are at uniformly low-IQ societies. Again just like uniformly high-IQ ones there are two types depending on tribal diversity. There are homogeneous low-IQ societies and Somalia is one of the best examples. There are also diverse low-IQ societies. DR Congo is one of the best examples. So let's name them "Somalia Type" and "Congo Type" respectively. The only benefit the former type has over the latter is absence of tribal conflict. So maybe in some cases at least they can have relatively benign governance. Societies of both types tend to be uniformly poor, unsafe and miserable. Without radical IQ-boosting they just can not become good ones.

>>13391

>We're talking about an American cultural issue. Pointing out that that issue doesn't exist in certain other cultures doesn't help. It exists in that one.

>This is not a discussion about slavery in general. The discussion can be generalized, but you'd have to generalize it by talking about signaling and cultural norms in general, not by talking about slavery in general.

I have to talk globally because that's the only way to remove the log in the eyes of SJWs. What you described is better explained by cognitive diversity instead of by slavery.

One of my favorite examples is that of Trinidad and Tobago. Please explain to me why the fuck the descendants of indentured Indian servants are doing much better than the descendants of black slaves who were freed before them?

>This is what was meant by "segregation" in that context, and what would broadly be understood to be meant with the word "segregation" in that context:

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation

>You seem to be using another definition to derive a meaning that has nothing to do with this discussion.

I remember that there used to be a lot of discrimination against Japanese folks in America, including sundown towns. However they are doing well. Apparently racism had negligible impact on them.

Instead of saying underperforming tropicals are fucked up because of muh ebil whitey, here is my hypothesis: They are fucked up because their ancestors never learned intensive agriculture and the civilized way of life. They don't have either the genes or memes necessary to do well in a modern civilization.

>>13391

If you want to ask me what my opinion of underperforming tropicals is, here we go:

They are a global liability of humanity.

>>13392

>>13393

>>13394

>>13395

Your posts aren't naturally related to the rest of the thread. >>13392 and >>13392 appear verbatim in a post on another website from a week ago.

You bring up the same topics in all your posts in every thread you post in. That makes it hard to discuss other topics.

Can you start a separate thread for your posts, especially about race and (the non-existence of) morality, and keep them out of other threads? Then people who want to talk about it can seek you out there.

(I think this is warranted, but tell me if it isn't.)

>>13396

Sure! I will start a new thread on the Tropical Question (TQ) so that in the future all TQ-related discussions should preferably be in the TQ thread.

>>13390

i sincerely hope you get your wish to be eaten by a bear, as you would most certainly find right by way of might.