I have unvoted this comment because I can’t decide whether I feel happy that I posted it. However, I did feel it was important to leave it here anyway.
I agree with the complaint about rationalist fiction. Your choice of concern example is understandable and I would also find it disturbing if I experienced it. I have a similar sense of disturbing feeling when considering the memetics of other modern ideologies, and I hope to someday become confident that your choice of who to criticize does not have a systematic exception. I can’t tell if it’s real, but I have a sense of isolated demand for rigor when you pick on the left and center but not the right.
it seems to me that left vs right isn’t a particularly important dimension compared to the dimensions of auth-vs-liberty, prosocial-vs-antisocial, and egalitarian-vs-takeovertheworldism, that we should be focusing on broad-spectrum anti-authoritarianism and prevention of power concentration; in which case, I would hope you can also criticize authoritarianism on the right. But what I see is someone who endorses anti-egalitarianism and hasn’t visibly engaged with the value prop for egalitarianism or how you would achieve value satisfaction for the motivations for it in a broad-spectrum, cross-view-compatible way. If I felt my views were welcome in a coalition that included you, I would be quite excited; it seems to me that you have the seed of something that could become a real alternative to the locked-in frameworks that are common today. But I see you prematurely associating it with a particular aesthetic in a way that concerns me, such that every time you post something, it seems to contain a sharp jab against the left without any matching pattern of sharp jabs against the right, whereas I see both as similarly broken in opposing parts of their worldviews: the left perhaps might be broken about how to make good things happen, the right might be broken about what good things are, for example. I do not endorse that claim fully because there are also brokennesses about what good things are on the left, and brokenesses about how to achieve good things on the right.
I have unvoted this comment because I can’t decide whether I feel happy that I posted it. However, I did feel it was important to leave it here anyway.
I agree with the complaint about rationalist fiction. Your choice of concern example is understandable and I would also find it disturbing if I experienced it. I have a similar sense of disturbing feeling when considering the memetics of other modern ideologies, and I hope to someday become confident that your choice of who to criticize does not have a systematic exception. I can’t tell if it’s real, but I have a sense of isolated demand for rigor when you pick on the left and center but not the right.
it seems to me that left vs right isn’t a particularly important dimension compared to the dimensions of auth-vs-liberty, prosocial-vs-antisocial, and egalitarian-vs-takeovertheworldism, that we should be focusing on broad-spectrum anti-authoritarianism and prevention of power concentration; in which case, I would hope you can also criticize authoritarianism on the right. But what I see is someone who endorses anti-egalitarianism and hasn’t visibly engaged with the value prop for egalitarianism or how you would achieve value satisfaction for the motivations for it in a broad-spectrum, cross-view-compatible way. If I felt my views were welcome in a coalition that included you, I would be quite excited; it seems to me that you have the seed of something that could become a real alternative to the locked-in frameworks that are common today. But I see you prematurely associating it with a particular aesthetic in a way that concerns me, such that every time you post something, it seems to contain a sharp jab against the left without any matching pattern of sharp jabs against the right, whereas I see both as similarly broken in opposing parts of their worldviews: the left perhaps might be broken about how to make good things happen, the right might be broken about what good things are, for example. I do not endorse that claim fully because there are also brokennesses about what good things are on the left, and brokenesses about how to achieve good things on the right.