Moldbug Errors 3

The only right is the property right.

Moldbug is a leftist: he's writing in an attempt to seize something that isn't already his, via trickery. He contradicts himself thaumaturgically, which is why he contradicts himself in detail all the time.

"Or we could scale this attitude back a little. Rather than considering the 20th century and all its works as an abomination, a scar upon history, one vast sin whose penance will still be sending us bills in the 2200s, we could take it as—a normal part of history."
https://graymirror.substack.com/p/scott-alexander-the-disappointed

"They have dedicated their lives to the state security of one of the most inept, clumsy and callous regimes in history."
https://graymirror.substack.com/p/will-wilkinson-the-slave-of-power

Look guys, having no idea what you yourself are thinking is what it means to be "married to reason."

Proof by contradiction: if Moldbug already owned the thing he wants to own, he wouldn't need to write long screeds about how it should dance. He would issue an order, and then it would be done. E.g. Urbit. He didn't need to write elaborate articles describing how Urbit should be coded. He could just code it. 

The world is surprisingly just. E.g. husbands and wives deserve each other 99% of the time. Further, Conquest #1 runs both forward and in reverse; that about which you are most conservative (right wing, property rights), in other words that which you know best, will tend to become your job.

Moldbug has to try to seize control of [whatever it is] precisely because he doesn't know much about it. He deserves not to be in control of it. 

In almost all cases blog-existence is the photo negative of the blogs that should exist. Moldbug knows a great deal about coding that I don't know, and if he were writing about that I would have to sit down and shut up. He is therefore, naturally, as a pure inevitability, writing about something else entirely. 

Secondary proof: what it is, exactly, that Moldbug is trying to control? Thing is, if you could easily tell, the mark might reinforce their walls, so...

As such: when someone doesn't take their own ideas seriously, you probably shouldn't take them seriously either.

Of course if you've been doing your set 2s, you can feel this maybe 2-3 paragraphs into a Moldbug screed. The difference between descriptive and proscriptive is not subtle. I'm not satisfied with pure set 2s, however. I insist on converting into a set 1 as well. This has many virtues, such as allowing one to climb the inferential ladder. Since this level is now verbalized, I can use intuition on the next level up. Et cetera.

I hypothesize that while it's possible to transcend one's race, Moldbug hasn't. The Gyews are beloved by deviant rulers everywhere for their tendency to carry water for the regime. You want a lawyer to tell you how to legally do what you were going to do anyway, and you especially want a Gyewish lawyer for that. 

Limited Fisking Section:

"If he is dreaming of rebellion, he is not dreaming of an inglorious and brutal shitshow. If he is dreaming of loyalty, he is not dreaming of an eternal and servile tyranny."
https://graymirror.substack.com/p/scott-alexander-the-disappointed

Both should submit to a Lord. Submit either to a collaborative Lord or a rebellious Lord. We can forgive the peasant who claims they chose the best Lord they could find. I do not forgive the peasant who claims to have no Lord.

If you insist on dreaming independently, then you take on the responsibility of being judged as Lord. And, obviously, found wanting.

BTW it's obvious Siskind does not believe in Bayes' theorem. It's plumage. Treating it as a genuine theory instead of plumage is autistic.
Only I'm allowed to be autistic, for what I hope are obvious reasons. 

"This is indeed the act of a child; my children will decide they dislike the title of a movie, then, if begged to give it a chance, grimly and resolutely hate it. "

Fun fact: children have a set novelty quota. They will run away from their mothers' skirts when they're behind, and watch hundred and hundreds of reruns when it's full. 99% of the time when you want your child to try a new food/movie and they don't want to, all you need to do is wait for them to catch up on their novelty processing. Sadly, parents aren't known for the patience this requires.

When the child (*GASP*) dislikes the movie recommended by the parent, the parent is a victim, and complains on their blog. Clearly, the child must be the victim, and the parent the victor, or everything is wrong with the world. So unjust.

The child's novelty quota comes from having to process and understand the novelty. To see how it relates to the rest of the world, to the child itself, etc. "Hating" a movie "resolutely" is only rational. It will only clog their processing pipeline. Although I cling to hope that in years past parents had some modicum of respect for the child's lived experience, it is easy to argue that the latest moment for any such event was over 10,000 years ago.

Hunter tribes beat their wives, showing they have no qualms about "domestic violence." (See also: red pill.) They do not beat their children. They recognize it as an unnecessary and cowardly act.

In reality children do come with an instruction manual. It's written on their heart, so you need some empathy to read it. Thus we are enlightened: of course good parents are essentially nonexistent. Children aren't people for goodness' sakes! People have feelings. Children don't, silly!

I see what I did wrong. Turns out correlation really isn't causation. The alcohol is taken to balm the wounded soul, which recognizes it has betrayed its own flesh and blood.
"The #1 way to humiliate yourself is to cooperate with power against your old friends. After you’ve done this you can never have any self-respect again: full Judas."

"(what does it say about Republicans that their last two presidents were nondrinkers?)"
https://graymirror.substack.com/p/donald-trump-the-natural-experiment
It says they're outgroup. Ooka ooka, monkey. We can all agree to eat them first, I guess.
Your principle is: don't get my balls kicked. You can't even imagine what the ancients meant by respect for a principled man. 

"it would mean there was one Party, which had one neck. If there is any lesson American communism has learned, it is the power of decentralization. We won’t be seeing any more Bridgman Conventions."

"Those were dogs on a leash. They could be turned on and off in one Zoom call."

The best part is these two sentences are two paragraphs away from each other. 

Don't be like Moldbug: do your set 4s.