
Two Kinds of Freedom of Speech (or Strangeloop vs. Curtis Yarvin) - protomyth
http://popehat.com/2015/06/10/two-kinds-of-freedom-of-speech-or-strangeloop-vs-curtis-yarvin/
======
nkurz
In case you were wondering what Curtis's talk might have been about (and
whether it would have held any technical merit) this page has a link to
Clark's earlier introduction to Urbit: [http://popehat.com/2013/12/06/nock-
hoon-etc-for-non-vulcans-...](http://popehat.com/2013/12/06/nock-hoon-etc-for-
non-vulcans-why-urbit-matters/)

The "Exit, voice, and loyalty" terminology might seem odd if you don't know
it's origins. It's from 1970 book by economist A. O. Hirschman that's coming
back in popularity:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit,_Voice,_and_Loyalty](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit,_Voice,_and_Loyalty).
Hirschman gives an 1978 intro/postscript in his own words here:
[http://homepages.wmich.edu/~plambert/comp/hirschman.pdf](http://homepages.wmich.edu/~plambert/comp/hirschman.pdf)

I'm surprised by apparent predominance of support here on HN for Strangeloop's
position. While clearly legal, it's strikes me as a terrible precedent to
require speakers on technical topics to pass a political litmus test. I'd be
interested to know the actual direction that the sentiment lies. Do those who
support Curtis appearing at the talk (wisely?) refrain from posting out of
(legitimate?) fear of career repercussion? Or am I (comfortable speaking
because I'm largely outside the industry) in the minority?

~~~
joelgrus
_Do those who support Curtis appearing at the talk refrain from posting out of
fear of career repercussion?_

No and yes. I have been pretty vocal about it on Twitter:

[https://twitter.com/joelgrus/status/606474432509394944](https://twitter.com/joelgrus/status/606474432509394944)
[https://twitter.com/joelgrus/status/606673594198794240](https://twitter.com/joelgrus/status/606673594198794240)

but I've also been sitting on a 75%-written blog post that I'm hesitant to
actually post.

Not because of _career_ repercussions (I have never had an employer who really
gave a shit what I write about in my spare time) but because of _conference_
repercussions.

I am promoting a book, and to that end I am scheduled to speak at various
conferences and meetups. And I worry that the mob would somehow try to get
_me_ uninvited. It's not like there's an actual policy that Yarvin violated
that I can be confident I'm on the right side of.

So I am torn between my natural inclination to say exactly what I think, and
the more practical takeaway of "don't write or have written anything that
might anger the mob".

~~~
existencebox
I typically avoid posting in these sorts of threads, very little good has come
from political debates on the internet that I've seen, but your last sentence
pushes me to speak up.

Status-quo social thoughtcrime is rather terrifying to me. There's no "easy"
way to amend laws or lobby a system to address the issue, as one would against
a governmental stance.

It's also cyclical, as less "clean" people speak out against it, the "only
rapists defend rapist" situation mentioned by sister posts occurs, and the
entire culture of defending someone who might be distasteful, separating the
issue from their broader history, diminishes.

I can't claim to judge you for your decision, I fully acknowledge the
unfortunate state of things and your ability to make a choice that best serves
your needs, but for the sake of putting my money where my mouth is; I think he
should have been allowed to speak (espousing viewpoints I disagree with is far
and beyond an offensive enough act to cause me to want to petition against
someone, and even then, I would not attempt to convey that aversion as
anything more than my personal stance).

The fact that I (or you, or any of us) feel any uncertainty due to fear of the
repercussions for merely voicing this opinion only serves to reinforce my
conviction that it needs to be voiced.

~~~
fweespeech
That is very, very true. It is, frankly, impossible to force change in such a
situation unless you already have a large enough soapbox to be heard and can
build a network of similarly minded [and widely read/heard] individuals.

I think, regardless of political affiliation, we have to admit to ourselves
that most people are prepared & willing to silence people with beliefs they
find odious. Please note that I said "beliefs" not "actions".

The right to vocalize and discuss our beliefs freely is something that must be
fundamentally protected, _most especially_ when it is odious. The only way to
do that is to make it both legally permissible [as the law can apply violent
force] but also _socially permissible to the point of indifference_ for people
to voice different beliefs [even the odious, bigoted ones].

------
nemo
While Moldbug holds hideous political views, if the talk is on tech. and
doesn't overlap him advocating hideous things, then this is akin to the old
Hollywood blackballing, the excuse for dropping him was pathetic, and I agree
that promoting a culture of free speech must be a core value of a liberal
society.

I'm pretty far-left (though more liberal than leftist), and found the black-
and-white leftist-bashing in the article didn't add much besides giving the
author the opportunity to vent his spleen at a segment of leftists while
pretending we're all some monoculture, which is ludicrous. Would have been
better to just focus on the issue of why an open society needs to be willing
to accept diverse political views, even hideous ones like Marxism or
neoreactionary craziness, without using it as a platform for pontificating
about a crudely conceived culture war.

~~~
maxmax
Hitler was a decent painter, but I wouldn't want him in my gallery.

~~~
nemo
The problem with Hitler wasn't just the ugly and noxious ideas he had, but
what he did. Moldbug is a ignorant crank, but on that front he isn't doing
much besides ranting, largely in the incoherent jargon he's invented. I don't
like him, and can't stand his views, but I fully believe that preserving his
freedom to think and say ignorant and stupid things is important to protect,
and any attempt at a cure is likely worse than the poison.

I'm been told by plenty of people that I'm a loon with crazy political views
(Tea Party family members mostly), but if I was working on an interesting
tech. project, and wanted to do a talk at a tech. conference about it, I'd
hope that wouldn't be a factor in conference organizers rejecting me.

If I'd started a political party founded on ideals of illiberalism,
dictatorship, and subjugation of the people I hated and worked to gain
political power in the US, then I'd say not accepting me at a conference could
be more easily justified as the conference would then become a political
platform for me regardless of what the talk was about.

------
forgottenpass
Clark does a great job elucidating the point I've heard many other people
struggle to present. One of the things I love about writers that specialize in
legal matters, they're very good at articulating a position.

The "questions for sponsors" bit is particularly sharp at cutting towards the
discrepancy between the standards dissenters expected from the conference and
those they saw. There may be widely agreeable answers to the "how is this
justifiably different?" question, but the conversations so far have largely
skated around it with sophistry.

Also, I'd recommend everyone read the "Tolerating everything except the
outgroup" link, but the writing style and/or position might prevent you from
seeing the message.

~~~
clarkhat
Despite writing at a legal blog, IANAL, but am a mere techie like yourselves.

Or was, till I took an arrow to the knee.

Anyway, thanks for your kind words re the post!

~~~
sudioStudio64
I enjoy your writing but I think I disagree with the successes that you
attribute to the blue team. Some of them are right on, but some successes are
only that if you say that blue means liberal like Adam Smith was a liberal and
not a mercantilist. That's just my take though. Cheers!

~~~
hga
The general, reductionist way I've seen it put and like, is that the "blue
team" has been so successful in the culture war that they are now reduced to
policing the battlefield and shooting the survivors. Which Yarvin obviously
_was_ , seeing as how there's little to no chance Urbit will ever get a chance
in this current totally politicized environment.

------
mikeash
This whole concept of paying attention to fellow techies' political views is
weird to me. The concept of caring about them to this degree is even weirder.

Politics is a common topic here, of course. I've participated in my share of
such discussions. But I couldn't tell you who took what position. I'd
definitely never look at a prospective conference speaker and say, oh, that's
the guy who believes X, where X is any political subject. Not even as a
neutral observation, let alone as criticism.

Is this a real thing? This conversation feels like a window into an alternate
universe.

~~~
theorique
_Is this a real thing? This conversation feels like a window into an alternate
universe._

I'm with you there.

I've helped organize a couple of small regional meetings, and I have literally
zero idea what the political leanings of the speakers or attendees were. Nor
did I care.

If someone were into radical politics in his free time, that would be his own
business. If any of the speakers had veered off into unrelated violent or rude
speech (e.g. racism, calling for war, political uprising, etc) at the podium,
for a _technical_ talk, that would be addressed _on the spot_. (I've never
seen this happen.)

~~~
anon_adderlan
> I've helped organize a couple of small regional meetings, and I have
> literally zero idea what the political leanings of the speakers or attendees
> were. Nor did I care.

But if you are _informed_ of their political leanings, and then don't take
'appropriate' action, then that says something about YOU, like how you endorse
and advocate such politics.

See how it works ;)

------
sudioStudio64
Even though I'm deliciously close to 200 karma I'm going to ask this anyway...

If someone has a view that is actually destructive for the forum its aired in
( I'm speaking hypothetically now ) does it have to be accommodated.

By that, and I genuinely want to know what you guys think, what if a political
candidate advocated the end of democratic elections? A "one man, one vote, one
time" kind of thing. How is that handled in an open society?

Extreme conservative opinions like Mr Yarvins are actually shocking to me. I
don't think his particular writings should be banned or anything like that.
However, are they so reactionary as to represent to the organizers a position
that they don't want to even tacitly or obliquely endorse?

I will say this, the first post on this subject the other day saw me having
one of the most interesting exchanges I've ever had on HN. That was cool.

~~~
amcastillo
Some important context to recognize in this incident is that it was a handful
of explicitly (leftist) political personalities that rose any stink to begin
with. Clark more or less names them all in his piece. Most of the ones who
pushed to censor Urbit from Strange Loop even admitted that they personally
were not attending the conference. Most conference attendants would not have
had the first clue that a member of the Urbit team maintained a conservative
political blog from 2007 to 2013 or so under the pseudonym Mencius Moldbug.
The ones that did probably would not care too much about it as most of them
are not preoccupied with aggressive radical politics. They'd attend the talk,
or not, and go on with their lives.

It's a heckler's vote. Now, the conversation is about Yarvin and his politics.
But if these 3-4 radical and deeply political agitators had not made this an
issue to begin with, everyone attending the conference would have just known
they were attending a presentation on Urbit (if they even chose to check out
that session).

In other words, if this is established as a precedent, then a passionate
enough fringe group can create the "destruction" they claim to be _against_ to
justify covert ideological policing. That this is occurring at a strictly
technology event with a reputation for openness to innovative, experimental
ideas is particularly chilling.

"Nice conference you got there, shame if this speaker I don't like created a
controversy for you"-type manipulation does not seem as bad or obvious when
the targeted beliefs are foreign to your own. Stepping back and anticipating
the implications reveals a troubling future, and one that is occurring in many
industries at once.

~~~
sudioStudio64
You know, I've actually heard of that as an actual racket in other
industries...

That's really interesting that the most prominent voices against him aren't
attending...I don't know.

I don't think that you have to imagine done kind of follow on effects...i
think the US probably irreversibly stopped being a free society when it became
a national security state. So, I guess what I'm saying that it doesn't seem
our of character in the US. I would just add that it's actually bidirectional
pressure from both the left and the right depending on the subject and the
area.

I'll stop rambling... Thanks for the background info, though...

------
NhanH
Just tangentially related, but I believe one of PG best essay (imo) would be
appropriate for all parties involved:
[http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html)

------
lrc
Thought experiment: is there _any_ extremity of leftist (or progressive if you
prefer) thinking (say, on a personal blog) that could conceivably get one
disinvited to speak on a technical topic at a conference of this sort?

~~~
sudioStudio64
It depends on what you call left. I bet someone that seriously proposed
violence against some institutions or industries would get disinvited. Animal
rights extremists or eco-terrorist organizations might fit that bill too.

~~~
lrc
I thought of eco-terrorism too. But then I thought of William Ayers.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers)

~~~
scintill76
As a counterexample? Does he fit here? Does he speak mostly on politics rather
than other topics? Then again, his political beliefs/actions are so polarizing
that maybe it's hard to separate them from his work in other areas (somewhat
akin to what the organizers of Strangeloop claim in their case.)

Does Noam Chomsky get heat for his political views? I was amused when I
realized the Chomsky I'd heard about in CS classes was the same person I'd
read about in political news. I guess his views are more palatable to the
people criticizing Mr. Yarvin.

~~~
lrc
I would say that if being part of a bombing campaign isn't an impediment to
becoming a Distinguished Professor at UIC, then being part of a bombing
campaign isn't enough to get him disinvited from StrangeLoop either, however
many astonished tweets might have greeted his appearance on the program:
becuase, in that case, it would have been easy for the organizers to separate
his political thought from his educational thought. Of course that's
speculation on my part.

~~~
sudioStudio64
Just playing devils advocate, he had renounced violence by the time he joined
academia hadn't he? He wasn't Carlos the Jackal. Honestly, I can't remember
the whole weathermen story.

This whole episode does make you wonder where the line would be drawn in the
future.

~~~
fche
''I don't regret setting bombs,'' Bill Ayers said. ''I feel we didn't do
enough.'

2001-09-11, NYT

~~~
hga
Let's emphasize, that was printed on "9/11", with a photo of Ayers standing on
an American flag....

~~~
sudioStudio64
He didn't know that 9/11 was going to be 9/11 though...It's dickish, but it
was planned to coincide or anything.

~~~
hga
Indeed, but I believe the unfortunate timing makes the lack of reaction to
this article even more of interest. Juxtapose that with the leaders of our
ruling class singing the very militant _Battle Hymn of the Republic_ in the
National Cathedral five days later ([http://www.mrrhoads.com/national-
cathedral-dc-battle-hymn-of...](http://www.mrrhoads.com/national-cathedral-dc-
battle-hymn-of-the-republic.html))....

------
Kelly2
To play devil's advocate, a conference is not only about the speeches, but
also about the people you can meet there.

Inviting Moldbug bring not only his own person but also his followers. It's
understandable if your goal is to foster a diverse crowd to not invite a group
of people who constantly argue against any kind of modern society.

~~~
davidgerard
To be fair, neoreactionaries are mostly notable for their startling lack of
real-world achievements. Yarvin is exceptional in this regard. (Tunney has
disclaimed "neoreaction" of late.) They tend to have extensive blogging
credentials, however. (And are a dab hand with an occasional cheese dip.)

 _edit:_ if there are others with notable real-world achievements, I will
eagerly accept correction.

~~~
jart
Tunney here. I'm not a neoreactionary. I never was.

\- 2014/05/27: @ReactionaryTree I don’t identify as a neoreactionary. Although
I talk to a lot of people who do.
[https://twitter.com/justinetunney/status/471281445013843968](https://twitter.com/justinetunney/status/471281445013843968)

\- 2014/05/30: @tesseractiv I don't identify as a neoreactionary. I already
had my movement. I don't want to join any others.
[https://twitter.com/justinetunney/status/472425936692854784](https://twitter.com/justinetunney/status/472425936692854784)

\- 2014/06/28: @nullvoid9 I'm not a neoreactionary :'( I'm also friendly and
will treat you with the same respect you give me.
[https://twitter.com/justinetunney/status/482757375854522368](https://twitter.com/justinetunney/status/482757375854522368)

\- 2014/08/04: Who said I was a neoreactionary? I keep telling people I'm not,
but no one believes me.
[http://ask.fm/JustineTunney/answer/116475763475](http://ask.fm/JustineTunney/answer/116475763475)

\- 2015/01/15: @DurrutiOvercloc Well, most of the things. Like, I’m not pro-
slavery. I’ve also never called myself a neoreactionary.
[https://twitter.com/justinetunney/status/555603973286400000](https://twitter.com/justinetunney/status/555603973286400000)

\- 2015/03/11: @jhamby @justkelly_ok I'm not a neoreactionary. I've never been
one. Also Shanley is a huge racist.
[https://twitter.com/justinetunney/status/575829516079263744](https://twitter.com/justinetunney/status/575829516079263744)

~~~
anon_adderlan
Well, if the mysterious sdfghjkl34567 is to be believed, then you don't get to
decide what neoreactionary _means_ , and so don't get to decide if you are one
or not as far as others are concerned.

On the other hand you did start a petition to turn over government rule to
Google, and believe the bottom 1/3 of the population should be live in
servants to the top 1/3\. What this has to do with neoreactionarism I have no
idea, but apparently many people think it's associated.

P.S. I'm still not convinced that you're not a troll, but then again I'm not
sure if this is not exactly the kind of $#@% that needs to be stirred up.

------
rayiner
Ironically, conservatives wouldn't be working themselves up over why
Strangeloop might want to exclude Yarvin. Tribalism is intrinsic to humanity,
and central to the concept of a tribe is the power to exclude. We like to
associate with people that think like we do. We place limits on that for
idealistic reasons, but it's ridiculous and futile to try and erase all
elements of tribalism from our social interactions.

------
lhnz
For those interested in the tech, I found this article on the technology
behind Urbit a fairly interesting start:
[http://moronlab.blogspot.co.uk/2010/01/urbit-functional-
prog...](http://moronlab.blogspot.co.uk/2010/01/urbit-functional-programming-
from.html)

Note: it was written in 2010 and I am sure that over the last 5 years a lot
will have changed.

------
theorique
It's a good summary - generally balanced, but skewing toward the side of
letting CY speak on Urbit, and asking some pointed questions about why he was
removed after acceptance.

------
anon_adderlan
The problem I have is not with who was removed or not, which I couldn't care
less about, but how it was done.

[https://s3.amazonaws.com/sl-notes/yarvin.txt](https://s3.amazonaws.com/sl-
notes/yarvin.txt)

So on the word of a few individuals he doesn't name, with information he
doesn't bother to validate for himself, Alex decides to remove Curtis from the
lineup because he might be 'distracting', not because of what he'd say, but
just because he'd be _present_. This implies an environment where we're
powerless against unnamed accusers, an authority who is unwilling to evaluate
the merits of a case, and a group of people who are so unable to separate
technical matters from politics that the mere presence of someone they
disagree with makes it impossible to focus.

And you know what? I've seen exactly this sort of behavior from other
corporations and both the 'left' and 'right'. It's something _all_ groups
naturally default to, and active measures need to be taken in order to avoid
it. And while I get why people want to remain anonymous, I also know you
cannot have the free flow of ideas when anonymous accusers can cost you your
position, by making accusations they never need to verify, over things you
never intend to address at a venue.

We need to _challenge_ ideas, not bury them, especially at a conference like
Strangeloop. And if the Urbit presentation was deemed good enough to hear
_before_ these facts came to light, then it's still good enough to be
challenged on that basis.

P.S. By excising Curtis Yarvin in an attempt to avoid _" overshadowing the
talk and acting as a distraction for launching the conference as a whole"_,
Alex Miller has done just that. And if I were to put on my tinfoil hat and
give a bad faith reading of all this, considering the internet savvy are well
aware of the Streisand Effect, I'd say this was exactly their intent.

------
TheCartographer
So, a question: now that Alex Miller's activities outside of the technical
content of Strangeloop - I.E., banning a presenter over his personal politics
- have created such a large distraction from the technical content that is to
be presented at Stangeloop, will he be stepping down?

------
mcguire
On the one hand, I find this situation disturbing, because a technical talk at
a technical conference has nothing at all to do with politics. On the other
hand, I somewhat understand Strangeloop's situation: it is pretty clear that
even if this a completely technical talk, the other attendees would _make it_
about politics---you know, the whole "bad speech should be fought with more
speech" thing?---which would cause problems for the conference.

On the third hand, though, I find the popehat post, complete with the use of
"social justice warrior", to be especially repellent. Although I do
congratulate Clark on the ability to be a conservative intellectual---I now
have a puddle of condescension on my office floor.

------
steveklabnik
I've protected my twitter account because of
[https://gist.github.com/steveklabnik/7cd3267a631c4847c34d](https://gist.github.com/steveklabnik/7cd3267a631c4847c34d)

Basically, a Breitbart columnist said that they were putting an article about
me today. When this happens, a wave of harassment generally follows. I did not
delete that or any other tweet on this issue.

(They seem to have decided to post about something else instead, we'll see.)

As I said in the last thread, I don't really plan on reading and responding to
much here, but since this is on the front page, might as well correct the
inaccuracy.

~~~
oldmanjay
I'm having a hard time understanding the "hate speech is violence"
perspective. I feel like that position can only be held by someone who has
never actually been assaulted using real, actual violence. I guarantee, being
punched feels a heck of a lot worse than standing next to a person who
(potentially) talked positively about slavery.

~~~
oldmanjay
As a follow up, I've read a bunch of Unqualified Reservations since this whole
brouhaha started (and I read some before, I find it occasionally amusing) and
I've never seen any of the racism or hate speech I see claimed. I have seen a
lot of out-of-context examples, but every one I tracked down was simply using
shocking imagery to make a larger point. There is quite a bit that speaks
frankly of slavery and the relationships involved, but nothing I've seen that
I could consider racist, unless the very concept of slavery is supposed to be
considered racist... which is ridiculous, in my opinion.

edit: wording

~~~
Cowen
> unless the very concept of slavery is supposed to be considered racist

I've never read a word of Moldybug or whatever, but in the American context,
the very concept of slavery is absolutely considered racist and rightly so.
America's history of slavery is completely inseparable from racism.

~~~
oldmanjay
Slavery as a concept has nothing to do with American racism or American
history. Slavery existed long before America was a dirty thought in a
pilgrim's hatted head, and it still exists today, and it will likely exist so
long as humans are recognizably human.

To outright decide that all mentions of a word have such a narrow context is
something I cannot accept as valid. It's thoughtcrime.

~~~
Cowen
Concepts are understood in contexts. Everyone involved in this context is
American, so it's natural for slavery here to be viewed through an American
context. In that context, slavery is inherently racist.

After all, it's not like Moldbug's writing shies away from this idea.

> Not all humans are born the same, of course, and the innate character and
> intelligence of some is more suited to mastery than slavery. For others, it
> is more suited to slavery. And others still are badly suited to either.
> These characteristics can be expected to group differently in human
> populations of different origins. Thus, Spaniards and Englishmen in the
> Americas in the 17th and earlier centuries, whose sense of political
> correctness was negligible, found that Africans tended to make good slaves
> and Indians did not. This broad pattern of observation is most
> parsimoniously explained by genetic differences.

~~~
oldmanjay
I'll agree, it's very human and natural for people to deliberately
misunderstand things so they can work themselves into a rage over things. It's
intellectually dishonest, particularly in this case, and so I give it no
shrift.

If all you have to make your case is rhetorical tricks (like "look! somewhere
in this man's million plus words he talked about Africans being slaves!
Slavery is therefore a specific kind of racist in all conversations") then I
work from the premise that there isn't much of a case to be made.

~~~
Cowen
> it's very human and natural for people to deliberately misunderstand things
> so they can work themselves into a rage over things.

Kind of like what you're doing right now?

------
lrc
"Emerging languages, alternative databases...code-heavy." That's from
StrangeLoop's 'About' page. The fact is, the talk would have worked, not the
least because it's consistent with the conference's overall mission.

Folks looking for a polite argument with Curtis could have had one.

------
leppr
Well, he is an active detractor of Democracy, it's possible he could try to
spread his agenda through technology (take a look at the colonialist imagery
in Urbit).

His view on gender 'roles' is also dangerously close to hate speech (and
before any of you calls me an islamophobic: as a non-muslim white male he has
no cultural heritage that could justify his opinion, so it's different).

~~~
tjradcliffe
I have very little idea what Yarvin's view on "gender roles" is but assume
it's a traditional Anglo-European one that subjugates women to men, the same
as virtually every culture everywhere has before the past hundred-odd years.

So this seems to suggest that you believe that "non-Muslim white males" have
_no cultural heritage whatsoever_ , which is... odd.

------
lexcorvus
In this context, I think it's worth reading the article "The Curious Case of
Mencius Moldbug" at Slate:

[http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2015/06/cur...](http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2015/06/curtis_yarvin_booted_from_strange_loop_it_s_a_big_big_problem.single.html)

~~~
savanaly
If anyone is wondering about the actual views and arguments of Moldbug and his
neoreactionaries, they were covered and responded to by economist blogger Noah
Smith here.

[http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2014/01/neoreactionaries....](http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2014/01/neoreactionaries.html)

The crux of it (and something I never saw quite covered in all the essays
bouncing around) is

"Essentially, neoreaction is the dream of a society of mostly white people,
living in a hierarchy based both on group membership (aristocratic lineage,
gender, race) and individual ability (IQ). The neoreactionaries do not demand
total racial purity. But many seem to think that if multiple races live in the
same country, the races should be placed in a hierarchy of power, status, and
freedom, apparently based on the average IQ of their racial group. Since the
movement is about European traditionalism, it's not clear whether white people
would be given a special place in the hierarchy, even above those groups whose
average IQ is higher than that of whites.

As for women, many neoreactionaries appear to want them to return to
traditional social roles - homemaking and child-rearing - and to submit more
willingly to the sexual desires of men. Finally, there is some sense that
within these group boundaries, the neoreactionaries might want a limited
meritocracy - in other words, maybe the smart should rule. However, some
neoreactionaries (particularly Anissimov) praise the idea of aristocracy,
apparently believing that naturally superior people would manage to win the
titles of nobility, and that their descendants would remain superior.

In other words, the neoreactionaries want the West to be a lot like the Ming
Dynasty, but for white people. I've often thought of Europe as "the China that
never quite made it"; neoreaction seems like the latest manifestation of a
dream that refuses to die. "

~~~
lexcorvus
_the actual views and arguments_

Getting the views of neoreactionaries from Noah Smith is like getting the
views of Luther's _95 Theses_ from Pope Leo X. How about, you know, just
reading Moldbug?

[http://moldbuggery.blogspot.com](http://moldbuggery.blogspot.com)

~~~
amcastillo
Looks like this person edited their comment. Anyway, you're right, Noah Smith
is one of the less objective filters you could seek to fairly summarize a
right-of-left-of-center viewpoint.

Read Moldbug, people.

~~~
davidgerard
Life is far too short to actually read Moldbug. The man seriously does not
state his thesis until at least 1000 words in (I am not exaggerating).

~~~
amcastillo
De gustibus non est disputandum :)

Life is too short to do a lot of silly things like veg on junk TV or fart
around on Twitter or read the entire Harry Potter and the Methods of
Rationality all day yet I admit that I sometimes persist.

Moldbug is a strange and fascinating bird that is not immediately meant to be
understood, but experienced. There really is no one else like him. For those
with a taste for the antiquated charm of letters filtered for the post-post-
modern generation, he writes entertaining and challenging essays that lets us
peek behind the lacquered veneer of modern society to get a feel for what it
is that we don't realize we have forgotten. He is certainly not for everyone,
but a "fascist racist sexist anti-Christ" he is decidedly not.

------
davidgerard
[http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Neoreactionary_movement](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Neoreactionary_movement)

Ken is the free speech Popehat, Clark is the ... lesser Popehat.

~~~
13thLetter
You might want to try using an argument of some sort next time.

