Thank you for the links. I really feel like they needed to be part of the original post.
Yarvin's writing is... rather too voluminous for me to feel confident that I know what he believes, in so little time, but I did see a few things in that seven-year-old post which made me question the interpretation given:
> "Lifetime employment and slavery are, of course, practically synonyms, and indeed the same phenomena of reciprocal loyalty and dependency were said - repeatedly, in my memory, in the '90s on NPR - to emerge."
> ...
> "Carlyle is in fact ready to be as indignant as anyone over these abuses. He reasons: since slavery is a natural human relationship, this bond will exist regardless of whether you abolish the word. And it does - if only in broken and surreptitious forms."
This leads me to think that he's using words in a non-standard way. An unwise way, given the response it's gotten him, and I certainly wouldn't invite him to speak anywhere if I thought he was going to say things like that. But I'm really not okay with seeing someone attacked for beliefs I'm not sure they actually hold, in domains unrelated to those beliefs, by people who don't appear to be trying to be charitable.
He certainly is a wind-bag. I always suspect that these looney philosophers are deliberately obscure and long winded because their arguments wouldn't stand up if they were written in plain english.
Yarvin's writing is... rather too voluminous for me to feel confident that I know what he believes, in so little time, but I did see a few things in that seven-year-old post which made me question the interpretation given:
> "Lifetime employment and slavery are, of course, practically synonyms, and indeed the same phenomena of reciprocal loyalty and dependency were said - repeatedly, in my memory, in the '90s on NPR - to emerge."
> ...
> "Carlyle is in fact ready to be as indignant as anyone over these abuses. He reasons: since slavery is a natural human relationship, this bond will exist regardless of whether you abolish the word. And it does - if only in broken and surreptitious forms."
This leads me to think that he's using words in a non-standard way. An unwise way, given the response it's gotten him, and I certainly wouldn't invite him to speak anywhere if I thought he was going to say things like that. But I'm really not okay with seeing someone attacked for beliefs I'm not sure they actually hold, in domains unrelated to those beliefs, by people who don't appear to be trying to be charitable.