[db-interface]

While I don't agree with all of the framing in the NYT story, it's worth noting that Scott Alexander was much friendlier to Moldbug et. al. than the anti-Metz camp argued at the time: https://twitter.com/ArsonAtDennys/status/1362153191102677001

I think Metz's motivation for that framing was his assumption that if SA was not at least sympathetic to NRx views, he would not allow them to be such a big voice in his comments and in his community. You can argue about the reasonableness of this assumption, but he did turn out to be right.

[kragen]

alexander is the guy who wrote the 30,000 word anti-reactionary faq about why moldbug was wrong, though; those screenshots explain in detail why he was unsympathetic to their neoreactionary views, rather than demonstrating that he was sympathetic to them

he does say some things there that are entirely outside the pale and that he should have known better than, but sad to say, those particular beliefs aren't limited to neoreactionaries

[db-interface]

I don't mean to say that he was a closet NRx -- and IMO neither did Metz imply that -- just that he agreed with a much larger subset of their controversial views than he or his allies admitted publicly. I would consider that being "sympathetic" to NRx.

[kragen]

i don't think the leaked screenshots support those conclusions; i don't have any idea where you're getting those conclusions from

[sudosysgen]

If you believe that differences in behaviours between groups of humans are significantly explained by genetic variation (which is supported by the evidence to some degree), and that those genetic variations align along racial lines (which really isn't), what do you think that entails on social outcomes between racial groups?

[db-interface]

In them he says "HBD is probably partially correct" -- do you think that's not a NRx view (I agree others also hold it, but I would argue that it's a core view of NRx -- it doesn't need to be exclusive to them, e.g. Islam considers Jesus a prophet too), or that he publicly held that position previously?

[red75prime]

You can agree that people are different, and, simultaneously, don't agree that, say, the less useful ones should be stripped of some of their rights.

[db-interface]

If you view some races as generally "less useful" than others, most people would consider that racist regardless of whether you think they should enjoy the same rights.

[kragen]

note that neoreaction is opposed wholesale to the idea of human rights

[kragen]

i'm not familiar with the varieties of neoreaction that consider it a core view, though apparently to my surprise they do exist

i think the vast majority of racists aren't neoreactionaries, though. like literally more than 99.9%

[db-interface]

I spent a lot of time on SSC from 2013 to 2017, and my recollection is that the Venn diagram of commenters promoting HBD and those promoting RDx was nearly a circle. And similarly for related sites like LW. So in that context I would say the two are closely related.

I find it hard to believe you've been exposed to much NRx content if you don't think they consider HBD true and very important. Although don't take that as a criticism -- I would not recommend wading through their beliefs and look back on it as a waste of my time.

[Manuel_D]

This is straightforward guilt-by-association: because of the mere fact that Scott interacted with people espousing neo reactionary views, he must also be sympathetic to those views. Of course, this is completed wrong and easily known by reading Scotts writings on the topic: https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/10/20/the-anti-reactionary-f...

There is zero way to say in good faith the Scott espouses or even agrees with neo reactionism.

[db-interface]

I said he was "sympathetic to NRx views" and linked emails from him stating certain views widely held by Moldbug et. al. that he is sympathetic to. Do you disagree that "HBD" is an NRx view, or that the leaked emails express sympathy for it?

[Manuel_D]

Human biodiversity is an empirical fact. Are some populations taller than other, on average? Is red hair more prevalent in certain populations? Pretty much nobody actually rejects the idea of human biodiversity.

The neo reactionary types tend to draw specific conclusions from the idea of human biodiversity, like that racial disparities in IQ are inherent and not environmental. That's a conclusion I don't think is in line with Scott's views.

Furthermore, I suggest you read the linked emails in more detail. He likes the emphasis reactionaries put on social class, and dislikes ... pretty much everything else. He explicitly states that becoming a reactionary is stupid - I'm not sure how that's meant to be read as sympathetic.

This is another case where praising even a small component of a particular movement, even when paired with explicit condemnation of the movement as a whole, is taken as an endorsement.

[sudosysgen]

When Moldbug says HBD, he isn't saying "not all humans have exactly the same genes". HBD has a specific meaning in that context and the meaning is that some races are superior to others. That is specifically what Moldbug says when he talks about HBD, and SSC's author knows that well.

[Manuel_D]

I don't doubt that Yarvin has racist views. I do take issue with people insisting that Scott agrees with Yarvin by mere virtue of association, despite the Scott's clear explicit refutations of neo reactionaries.

[sudosysgen]

Scott's (partial) agreement with Yarvin is not from association, it's from him saying that he thinks HBD is at least partially correct, in a discussion with Yarvin where HBD means racial supremacy.

[db-interface]

> Human biodiversity is an empirical fact. Are some populations taller than other, on average? Is red hair more prevalent in certain populations? Pretty much nobody actually rejects the idea of human biodiversity.

> The neo reactionary types tend to draw specific conclusions from the idea of human biodiversity, like that racial disparities in IQ are inherent[...]

This is a classic motte-and-bailey. The IQ view is clearly the view that he is endorsing in the emails -- he is linking Steve Sailer's blog under "HBD is probably partially correct", and he even demands the recipient "NEVER TELL ANYONE I SAID THIS" -- obviously he's not talking about height.

[Manuel_D]

Again, you're drawing very explicit conclusions from a few sentences. Racial disparities in IQ are indeed observed, but it's highly contentious over whether these are due to environmental factors like education and nutrition or inherent. That Asians have score higher IQs on average than whites in the US is an empirical observation. But it's also known that IQ can be increased by studying, and Asians study about twice as much as white people in childhood [1].

Scott is acknowledging that the taboo to even recognize these disparities is counterproductive: it stymied attempts to improve schooling or studying practices, because it's taboo to even recognize that there is a difference and instead people typically allege that the tests are biased. Would Scott argue that with identical environmental factors we'd still see the same disparities in IQ across ethnic groups? I don't think so, and nothing in the emails linked seem to suggest this.

1. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/analyzing-the-homework-ga...

[db-interface]

If your contention is that we should more frankly discuss IQ disparities, pretending we're talking about height was a strange way to go about it.

In those emails, SA does not say he thinks these questions deserve more study -- he says they're "probably partially true". Again, in that context he's talking about Steve Sailer's views.

Yes, I'm focusing on a few sentences. Do you think he wrote those by accident? That the words came out wrong and the straightforward reading was not his intent? In the context of the rest of his emails, and his writing on e.g. Albion's Seed, I do not think that is likely.

[reducesuffering]

NRx views SSC as a useful blog to read in 2013-2017. Oh looks like you did too. Can't believe you're "sympathetic to NRx views."

[db-interface]

This is obtuse. I didn't make any argument about SA reading the same stuff NRx read, or even reading NRx stuff. I linked SA's own writing that "Many of their insights seem important" and that their views have "nuggets of absolute gold".

[Manuel_D]

"nuggets of gold" implies that the bulk of it is not gold. If reference someone, saying even a broken clock is right twice a day is that really an endorsement?

[db-interface]

As I mentioned in a sibling comment, the contention I intend to make is that he agrees more with the racial views of his NRx commenters than he publicly let on. That was the framing of the NYT article -- nobody thinks or would be incensed to learn that SA is a Neo-Monarchist or any of the other NRx beliefs that are orthogonal to modern US political discourse.

If you don't think racial IQ disparities are a significant part of NRx thought, fine, you're probably better positioned to know and I am happy to concede the point. In that case, a better comparison would be to Steve Sailor's views. I only mentioned NRx because that is the context of his emails, and I had not recognized that he was linking to Steve Sailor's blog.

[kragen]

it would be really surprising if a writer as prolific and literate as moldbug didn't occasionally produce nuggets of gold