- 0 Followers
- 0 Following
- 1 Posts
in all honesty we would love it if doing this were our job but there is no pathway to that that we can see. we just do it b/c it’s really fun
to say that i wouldn’t trust the boundaries at a rape party with aella is understating things
our pay is our satisfaction in having inflicted it on others as well
new odium symposium episode. we examine the foundational TERF text, janice raymond’s “the transexual empire,” which turns out to be about how trans people are a big pharma conspiracy
www.patreon.com/posts/12-invasion-of-w-152915964
www.odiumsymposium.com for links to other platforms
new development in ontology: “the ontology that makes ai models valuable is american,” said in the context of the models killing iranians
one of the brain geniuses at bluesky
wrt to the first part, nick consistently outmaneuvers people who bring him onto their platform. he’s honestly brilliant at understanding who the audience is, what frame he’s appearing in, and how to signal given those circumstances. i didn’t understand until i started prepping for this episode that nick is actually lazy and incurious in almost the exact same way alex jones is. dan and jordan notice and call out how he effortlessly establishes dominance over alex, but i think there’s a second order game going on where nick manages to appear competent and informed compared to alex that you don’t realize is just an artifact of conversational skill until you hear nick on his own show.
wrt to the second part, i could not agree more and i’m very glad to hear that is a takeaway because it is absolutely something i was hoping to communicate. that’s the freudianness of it all, how these existing patterns of relations to another get played out and reenacted through the audience’s relationship to nick
i think this is exactly why they had to come up with - or rather, misappropriate - the concept of coupled vs decoupled thinking. when they (especially the more, ahem, human biodiversity minded of them) fold ridiculous claims about what constitutes virtuous cognition into scientific and sophisticated sounding terminology, it makes those claims seem aligned with the broader sales pitch of rationalism
also that scott quote is excellent. i hadn’t heard that one before
if we had made the podcast series on rationalists, their importance as useful idiots for billionaires was the structure i wanted to hang the whole thing on. so this is a gratifying read. that said i think the ideas here will be very familiar to many stubsack readers
The rationalist view of the world assumes, at some level, that the relevant actors are optimizing for well-understood, predictable variables and a clear understanding of what best serves their self-interest. What it cannot account for is bad faith, impulsiveness, ideological motivation untethered from evidence, random instances of force majeure, and personal whims and petty rivalries.
i will go further and say that not accounting for such things is considered virtuous in rationalist ideology
new episode of odium symposium. it’s a tribute to knowledge fight, in which we dissect an episode of nick fuentes’s show. i was nervous about how this would turn out but i think it’s actually my favorite episode yet.
www.patreon.com/posts/11-groyper-151852222 (links to other platforms at www.odiumsymposium.com)