> scooter flirts with neoreaction like a horny teenage boy befuddled by a bra.

great line. OK, now I have to buy Nrx A basilisk

Ok, just bought it and in the intro she's already shitting on Nagle. 5 stars would read again

Yeah, they need to read Pearl's first book - https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1558604790/

It explicitly explains how to avoid such double counting. Also, arguments intercept expertise - they shouldn't update because someone thinks something different than them, they should update if the person have new arguments they hadn't yet considered.

the book Neoreaction: a basilisk by Elizabeth Sandifer seems pretty relevant here, it covers neo-reactionaries Nick land and Mencius moldbug, as well as showing how Yudkowsky relates to them.

> real talk tho, what exactly are the Jews supposed to be getting out of doing white genocide?

I think the racists idea is that the jews feel threatened by the superior non jewish white man who they cannot easily control or something. And by white genocideing the jews can gain all the power (or maintain all the power, as the enemy is both strong and weak at the same time)). (It also doesn't really make sense to me tbh).

Considering Beta Israelites are officially part of Israel and they are recognized as being jewish, the whole thing doesn't even make sense btw. As this means they are also weakening their own tribe. But I guess most racists simply don't know about the Beta Israelites.

Sort of indirectly related to SneerClub subjects, I hope that's ok. Apparently this guy Richard Carrier - of course not himself a New Testament specialist at all - tried to show that Jesus did not exist by waving the Bayes wand. Needless to say, it got rather bad reviews in professional journals. It seems a pretty astonishing example though of the belief that by applying Bayes' formula to any subject, you don't need to actually know anything about it...

They cite <em>Rationality and the Reflective Mind</em>, which looks potentially interesting.

> Stanovich argues that to fully characterize differences in rational thinking, we need to replace dual-process theories with tripartite models of cognition. Using a unique individual differences approach, he shows that the traditional second system (System 2) of dual-process theory must be further divided into the reflective mind and the algorithmic mind. Distinguishing them will allow us to better appreciate the significant differences in their key functions: The key function of the reflective mind is to detect the need to interrupt autonomous processing and to begin simulation activities, whereas that of the algorithmic mind is to sustain the processing of decoupled secondary representations in cognitive simulation.

The same author also wrote <em>What Intelligence Tests Miss: The Psychology of Rational Thought</em>, which also looks pretty good.

> He mentions Georges Bush, Jr. who was very intelligent as measured by IQ tests. But, he was not a proficient thinker as he was dogmatic, ill informed, impatient, and prone to rash decisions sometimes associated with devastating outcomes. Stanovich describes Bush condition as Dysrationalia or someone who is less rational than his IQ would suggest.

> (b) Help people understand leftist perspectives

• Ann Leckie's <em>Ancillary</em> series. Beautifully crafted left-wing, postmodern space opera, with a highly rationalist protagonist.

• "What Went Wrong? Reflections on Science by Observation and the Bell Curve", by Glymour. (Contains math.)

• ETA: Also, Graeber's Debt, and his excellent responsiveness to his Amazon-review critics (though it seems like you have to dig a bit to find his responses. I'm not sure how to link them directly.)

> "Experts suck and you never have to listen to what they say, you just have to think about it!"

I am totally, 100% behind that view. The likes of Peterson and Murray have been able to cement their pernicious views by appealing to their own authority, and Damore's argument for why women might be biologically determined to disinterest in programming was mostly an appeal to authority. If you can't at least read a scientific paper and judge its claims for yourself on the paper's own terms, you're bound to wind up getting manipulated by someone.

> show how "moderate-washed" figures like MLK, Gandhi, and Mandela were actually quite radical,

I haven't read much of it, but I bet Finkelstein's <em>What Gandhi Says: About Nonviolence, Resistance and Courage</em> fits the bill.

Here’s a really hilarious begpost very very politely imploring one of the most upvoted users of the site to stop posting far right tech. I’m sure it will result in the extremely karmatic user stopping their behavior or else get kicked off the site.… and not, say, being granted moderator bits.

It’s amazing how effective being polite can be in my head.

Ah yes, poetry's known habit of intentional obfuscation, natural in a world where "obscurity" is always "in fashion"

> The name "Lobste.rs" is a cute domain hack without any deeper meaning. It has nothing to do with self-help guru Jordan Peterson, whose fans started to call themselves "lobsters" about six years after we started.

• https://lobste.rs/about

It goes back a bit further than that.

I'm not OP, but if the reason you have a hard time processing your emotions is at all linked to your upbringing, I've found this book quite helpful: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B009VJ4B4C/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&amp;btkr=1

Basically, the book is about how your parents can inadvertently teach you that emotional expression is bad, which can screw you up, because expressing emotions and by extension, your needs, are a fundamental human drive. The book will give you techniques on recognizing your emotions, and a lot of useful support on encouraging you to be more comfortable expressing them.

The point is that the market is incapable of dealing with "externalities" (or actively harmful) and the only hope for a sustainable economy is global economic planning. There is a rich body of work in this area starting with Otto Neurath. The most recent work is Economic Planning in an Age of Climate Crisis by Cockshott, Cottrell and Dapprich.

You can choose to put whatever political system you want on top, but likely it will need to be radically democratic, far moreso than the despotic capitalist firms that most labour is done in at present.

These kinds of discussions get extra fun with rationalists because they don't grasp that we already have an evil self-replicating AI that is destroying the species and it is called capital.

You might consider reading "Cultish" by Amanda Montell:

https://www.amazon.com/Cultish-Language-Fanaticism-Amanda-Montell/dp/0062993151

This book documents the type of abuse of language that you've experienced by way of Rationalism. From my layman's perspective, Rationalism is well on the road to developing the sort of thought-terminating cliches and overloaded language that allows cults to close off members from any external influence.

Try amazon smile to donate to a charity of your choice automatically at no cost to you!
https://smile.amazon.com/Trans-Wizard-Harriet-Porber-Parasaurolophus-ebook/dp/B08B4BJNB3
^^^I'm ^^^a ^^^bot ^^^and ^^^this ^^^action ^^^was ^^^performed ^^^automatically.

Oh hey guess who is a Two time Hugo award finalist?

Chuck tingle.

He wrote a Harry Potter parody. Except unlike big yuds version it has good life and love lessons in it. It’s called.... get ready for this...

“Trans Wizard Harriet Porber And The Bad Boy Parasaurolophus: An Adult Romance Novel”

Yes. That’s right. And you can get it on amazon too. https://www.amazon.com/Trans-Wizard-Harriet-Porber-Parasaurolophus-ebook/dp/B08B4BJNB3

293 in books. #4 in fantasy romance.

Yes that’s right, this book significantly outsold hp:mor.

That's one of the reasons I use TTS

Slightly OT, <em>The Enigma of Reason</em> is a pretty interesting book (a little long-winded, but I like the ideas and the arguments so far.)