SneerClub

1010 readers

21 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

self@awful.systems

blakestacey@awful.systems

dgerard@awful.systems

LessWrong House Style (2023) (awful.systems)

submitted 2 weeks ago by dgerard@awful.systems to c/sneerclub@awful.systems

39 comments fedilink hide all child comments

https://nonesense.substack.com/p/lesswrong-house-style

Given that they are imbeciles given, occasionally, to dangerous ideas, I think it’s worth taking a moment now and then to beat them up. This is another such moment.

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

[–] Soyweiser@awful.systems 9 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Yeah but tescreal is a name we give them, themselves organise in different groups (which fit into the term yes). They have different parts pf the tescreal, but it all ends up in culty behaviour, just a different cult.

Btw see also love bombing with Quantum Scott. There was also the weird LW people who ended up protesting other LW people in the crazy way (didnt it include robes or something, I dont recall much). Or calling Scottstar the rightful caliph when Yud was posting less.

So my point is more they morph into different cults, and wonder how much they use this lack of singular cult as a way to claim they are not a cult. Or whatever rot13ed word they used for cult.

E: not that all this really matters in the grand scheme of things. just a personal hangup.

[–] sailor_sega_saturn@awful.systems 13 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

whatever rot13ed word they used for cult.

It's impossible to read a post here without going down some weird internet rabbit hole isn't it? This is totally off topic but I was reading the comments on this old phyg post, and one of the comments said (seemingly seriously):

It's true that lots of Utilitarianisms have corner cases where they support action that would normally considered awful. But most of them involve highly hypothetical scenarios that seldom happen, such as convicting an innocent man to please a mob.

And I'm just thinking, riight highly hypothetical.