SneerClub

983 readers

37 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 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

JD Vance outs himself as an SSCer, SSCers react (www.reddit.com)

submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

61 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I haven't read the whole thread yet, but so far the choice line is:

I like how you just dropped the “Vance is interested in right authoritarianism” like it’s a known fact to base your entire point on. Vance is the clearest demonstration of a libertarian the republicans have in high office. It’s an absurd ad hominem that you try to mask in your wall of text.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

What a bastardization of that post, and Scott's general views on the subject

Can someone summarize how this is a big misinterpretation or mistake?

I'm not in any way MAGA or trumpy or a culture war person [sure you are. E: one sort by controversial later and they are indeed a culture war person not a full time one but still], but I'm a long time SSC reader and I thought the post/article was about the fascinating and complete sorta morhph/takeover of the civic "ethos" or civic religion of the elite bluebloods of the USA.

From veneration of founders and founding fathers (up through Abe Lincoln, etc) as the sorta civic glue and religion that we are brought up on, to now embracing LGBTQ+ (not much emphasis on boring normal "L" and "G" [dog barks]) through parades, flags, police cars, crosswalks, holidayds, add campaigns, corporate slogans and logos, etc.

Is this not how most readers understood the article?

Hope this makes some sscers reconsider being a fan of scotts writing. (And yes there was pushback in the replies)

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (6 children)

not much emphasis on boring normal “L” and “G”

"Look I'm not really saying G-word and L-word are normal, but I might be willing to invite them to my BBQs if they never mention it, hate rainbows, and allow straight people to cut in line ahead of them as a civic duty."

Also wait is not even "B" 'normal' enough for this guy?

one sort by controversial later and they are indeed a culture war person

Instant regret.

This is asked in all sincerity: Why is there a coherent “community” of lesbians, gays, and transgender people? What is the important linking commonality that makes those groups into a community?

Gee I wonder. Also new rule whenever someone posts that they're asking something in sincerity or just wanting to understand or "confused", you're allowed to laugh in their face before they can finish. Seriously does anyone even fall for this anymore? It's so obvious.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 week ago (3 children)

They are also concerned about t levels in athletes, and IQ comes up. Which he defends with "If you think none of these tests are actually measuring anything of value, you must need to explain why they correlate so well with life outcomes related to cognition."

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 week ago

Me acing Raven's progressive matrix tests: Haha fuck yeah!!! Yes!!

Me dropping out of uni: Well this fucking sucks. What the fuck.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 week ago

life outcomes related to cognition

My sides.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

i see no evidence they don't realise just fine

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yeah considering various culture war posts are clearly still up, including ones calling progressives going crazy it all is a lot of plausible deniability.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago

Kinda stretching the definition of "plausible". It's less about external deniability and more about internal rejection. They want to avoid thinking of themselves as fascist-adjacent right-wing loons without giving up on being one

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago

B-but homophobia is a social phenomenon. It's not real (genetic)!

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

They don’t think of bisexuals as including married monogamous people who just so happen to be bisexual. It’s a thing. They want to paint the queer community’s “normal people” as “unfortunately exclusively attracted to the same gender”

And yeah some people really want to find a reason to exclude trans people and not acknowledge that we’ve always been part of our communities.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago

It's not that bi isn't "normal-enough". The half-clever shitheels have been trying to split off bisexuality under the guise of "they could pass so they aren't really oppressed like homosexuals". Keeping people divided to make it easier to oppress them and all that. Then you get people like this who probably have no conscious awareness of that intentional strategy but have been stewed in this shit-pot enough that they talk in terms of lesbian-gay with out even noticing.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago

They don’t like bisexuals.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago

why is there a coherent community of people I hate? wtf >:(