this post was submitted on 14 Dec 2023
2 points (100.0% liked)

SneerClub

1012 readers
1 users here now

Hurling ordure at the TREACLES, especially those closely related to LessWrong.

AI-Industrial-Complex grift is fine as long as it sufficiently relates to the AI doom from the TREACLES. (Though TechTakes may be more suitable.)

This is sneer club, not debate club. Unless it's amusing debate.

[Especially don't debate the race scientists, if any sneak in - we ban and delete them as unsuitable for the server.]

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] GorillasAreForEating@awful.systems 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Weirdly rationalists also sometimes read this book and take all the wrong lessons from it.

Scott Alexander is a crypto-reactionary and I think he reviewed it as a way to expose his readers to neoreactionary ideas under the guise of superficial skepticism, in the same manner as the anti-reactionary FAQ. The book's author might be a anarchist but a lot of the arguments could easily work in a libertarian context.

[–] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Idk if I'm steeped in enough siskind lore. How did he frame it?

Also James Scott is not an anarchist, or at least wasn't at the time he interviewed about writing "three cheers for anarchism" anyway. He is very sympathetic though as is typical in anthropology.

iirc he basically agrees with the tennents but thinks states are unlikely to be defeatable.

[–] GorillasAreForEating@awful.systems 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Here's the old sneerclub thread about the leaked emails linking Scott Alexander to the far right

Scott Alexander's review of Seeing Like A State is here: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/03/16/book-review-seeing-like-a-state/

The review is mostly positive, but then it also has passages like this:

Well, for one thing, [James C.] Scott basically admits to stacking the dice against High Modernism and legibility. He admits that the organic livable cities of old had life expectancies in the forties because nobody got any light or fresh air and they were all packed together with no sewers and so everyone just died of cholera. He admits that at some point agricultural productivity multiplied by like a thousand times and the Green Revolution saved millions of lives and all that, and probably that has something to do with scientific farming methods and rectangular grids. He admits that it’s pretty convenient having a unit of measurement that local lords can’t change whenever they feel like it. Even modern timber farms seem pretty successful. After all those admissions, it’s kind of hard to see what’s left of his case.

and

Professors of social science think [check cashing] shops are evil because they charge the poor higher rates, so they should be regulated away so that poor people don’t foolishly shoot themselves in the foot by going to them. But on closer inspection, they offer a better deal for the poor than banks do, for complicated reasons that aren’t visible just by comparing the raw numbers. Poor people’s understanding of this seems a lot like the metis that helps them understand local agriculture. And progressives’ desire to shift control to the big banks seems a lot like the High Modernists’ desire to shift everything to a few big farms. Maybe this is a point in favor of something like libertarianism?

[–] blakestacey@awful.systems 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

progressives’ desire to shift control to the big banks

[citation needed]

[–] self@awful.systems 1 points 1 year ago

for some reason the phrase “as a socialist, there’s nothing I love more than banks” is cracking me up in ways that are going to be very difficult to explain to the people around me right now if I’m asked to explain why I’m giggling