[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.

[red75prime]

"Less useful" belongs to "don't agree" part, if you haven't noticed. It isn't an inherent part of the package.

[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.

[kragen]

i read through most of moldbug's blog, and also knew his name and rhetorical style from crooked timber comments. possibly he was less racist than his followers? or just more circumspect about it. in any case, he attempted to justify his anti-liberal philosophy, at quite extreme length, but never on the basis of racism; so if racism was a core belief of his neoreactionary thought, it was apparently at a subconscious level

i remained unpersuaded in any case, steadfastly liberal

also, much to my surprise, he and i were both members of the first coworking space at spiral muse house in san francisco in 02006. but i didn't go very often, so i don't know if i ever met him; in any case that was before he revealed his identity

[db-interface]

I guess I am much less familiar with Moldbug's stated views than you, so I'm happy to concede that point.

Anyway, I think the HBD/NRx relationship is peripheral to the discussion of the Metz article -- I just framed it that way because that's the context of Scott's emails (certainly he think's they're at least associated!). The discourse around the Metz article was that it framed Scott as holding racist views, not specifically NRx views.

If I had mentioned Steve Sailer instead of NRx, would you agree that Scott was more sympathetic to those views than he publicly let on?