An interesting listen Rajeev, thank you for examining it. I made some notes as I was listening:
1. Absolutely correct that I cut straight to the hilt and avoided the discourse. Arguments only stem from logic in debate club, everywhere else, arguments and counter-arguments stem from the incentives and motivations of the person speaking. So in the case of turning over and examining a statement from a figure like Klavan with his cards on the table I concluded that his primary incentive for caution on this topic is his own self-interest. And by my interpretation, that makes his argument motivated by self-preservation and thus presented in bad faith.
2. In the comparison of self-interest (27:35) the way I see it is that our interests are not equal. I see an issue that has caused consequences for hundreds of millions of people, more if you take the issue global and look at the harm caused by the ideological outgrowth of DEI/ESG and how it has impacted western foreign policy etc. I am hesitant to put my kids in the good schools I moved to a specific neighborhood to raise them in, because I'll have to wonder if some mediocre BA who became a kindergarten teacher is going to try and gaslight my only son into castrating himself, or filling him with self-hatred over his ethnicity, or taking a dim view on the values and historical frame that I hold and want to pass on to him. I view the current state of affairs as the natural conclusion that started when we began to change the perception that homosexuality was not shameful and they were "just like us" despite the fact that most homosexuals do not marry, and even less of them will have children.
He's worried that if we overzealously respond to a crisis that deserves an enthusiastic response, that him and the small minority of men like him will still do everything they are doing now, but more privately and under a cloud of shame if they acknowledge it publicly (which is how it's been for most of human society)
His interests and my interests are not equal in my POV, which is why if my tone sounds like I'd run him over with a bobcat on the way to solving this problem, it's because I would.
3. You also hit the nail on the head at around 29:00 regarding my use of instinct as a preference for some arguments. I've had these arguments on these subjects so many times with so many different common psychological frames. They will lie, engage in sophistry, act in bad faith, and even when beaten logically they will refuse to accept defeat despite presenting the rules of engagement as being a contest of logic. When you reach that point you have to just reject their presented premise, use your instincts to determine what their hidden real premise is, and just tell them No. This is why I generally don't *argue* with people anymore, and instead issue rebuttals and block or mute when I see sophistic behaviors, particularly among high profile conservatives.
4. lmao I can't stand Rizoma and the people with her vibe, there are weird little outcasts who obviously have the psychological frame of Liberalism, but occupy interests and hobbies that are largely right wing or conservative. So if they are doing something interesting or are highly participatory in the discussion communities surrounding those interests, the clashes are inevitable. This is why the perception from right wingers will be "She's an entryist" because they see what is going on and consider it a purposeful infiltration.
But I don't necessarily think that. I think that a liberal enthusiastically dug into the homesteading space, which is overwhelmingly right wing and libertarian. A right wing account might go "oh cool, homesteading" and follow her, only to see a political discussion have a jarring difference of frame. But what does feel a bit more nefarious or at least distasteful, is the borrowing of right wing lingua franca such as naming the podcast "Doomer" optimism.
Rizoma is not an anon. Not culturally, not psychologically, not literally. So for a crowd of people who already dislike her for her ill fitting psychological frame for the space, using our words feels like a trespass that is deserving of contempt and further reinforces feelings that she is trying to co-opt at the very least the "energy" of what is a dominantly RW/conservative/Libertarian zone of influence. And with so few zones of cultural influence that we dominate compared to the "normiesphere" people are understandably defensive. We don't want a liberal to be successful or popular in homesteading, because that's our treehouse and there is so little left for them to take from us culturally as it is.
The same argument can apply to libertarian or anarchists who are actually just liberals or tankies in the gun community. A lot of fairweather idiots going "I don't care if she's got a dick, we talk about AK's together!" and time and time again it must be reinforced that hobbies are not enough to build any real loyalty between groups of a vastly disparate ideological frame that are in deep conflict with one another.
Sorry for the verbal vomit, I was typing as I was listening. But I appreciate the attention you gave the thread, and felt I would reciprocate.
Thanks for giving it a listen, and for sharing this thorough response! I'm glad I was able to do an adequate job representing your perspective. 🙏
"if my tone sounds like I'd run him over with a bobcat on the way to solving this problem"
I laughed a little bit at this because I don't perceive that level of hostility at all. There are a lot of people who are too sensitive, or who haven't been exposed to legitimately challenging thought, who mistake passion and assertiveness as aggression.
I enjoy the passion and bold assertion. The larger point is that I've been very positively influenced by right-wing anons and their contributions to intellectual discourse, even if I haven't been thoroughly radicalized.
I am never sure how people take my tone, since every frame has a different perception of others. It's mostly a GWOT veteran trait, we hurl expletives even when we're not angry and when we're on a roll talking about something we're interested in it gets pretty animated.
I mean yesterday I told RFK Jr. his clan deserved the curse it got for lobotomizing rosemary kennedy after he tweeted about his stance on affirmative action, I can get pretty crazy when I'm on a roll.
An interesting listen Rajeev, thank you for examining it. I made some notes as I was listening:
1. Absolutely correct that I cut straight to the hilt and avoided the discourse. Arguments only stem from logic in debate club, everywhere else, arguments and counter-arguments stem from the incentives and motivations of the person speaking. So in the case of turning over and examining a statement from a figure like Klavan with his cards on the table I concluded that his primary incentive for caution on this topic is his own self-interest. And by my interpretation, that makes his argument motivated by self-preservation and thus presented in bad faith.
2. In the comparison of self-interest (27:35) the way I see it is that our interests are not equal. I see an issue that has caused consequences for hundreds of millions of people, more if you take the issue global and look at the harm caused by the ideological outgrowth of DEI/ESG and how it has impacted western foreign policy etc. I am hesitant to put my kids in the good schools I moved to a specific neighborhood to raise them in, because I'll have to wonder if some mediocre BA who became a kindergarten teacher is going to try and gaslight my only son into castrating himself, or filling him with self-hatred over his ethnicity, or taking a dim view on the values and historical frame that I hold and want to pass on to him. I view the current state of affairs as the natural conclusion that started when we began to change the perception that homosexuality was not shameful and they were "just like us" despite the fact that most homosexuals do not marry, and even less of them will have children.
He's worried that if we overzealously respond to a crisis that deserves an enthusiastic response, that him and the small minority of men like him will still do everything they are doing now, but more privately and under a cloud of shame if they acknowledge it publicly (which is how it's been for most of human society)
His interests and my interests are not equal in my POV, which is why if my tone sounds like I'd run him over with a bobcat on the way to solving this problem, it's because I would.
3. You also hit the nail on the head at around 29:00 regarding my use of instinct as a preference for some arguments. I've had these arguments on these subjects so many times with so many different common psychological frames. They will lie, engage in sophistry, act in bad faith, and even when beaten logically they will refuse to accept defeat despite presenting the rules of engagement as being a contest of logic. When you reach that point you have to just reject their presented premise, use your instincts to determine what their hidden real premise is, and just tell them No. This is why I generally don't *argue* with people anymore, and instead issue rebuttals and block or mute when I see sophistic behaviors, particularly among high profile conservatives.
4. lmao I can't stand Rizoma and the people with her vibe, there are weird little outcasts who obviously have the psychological frame of Liberalism, but occupy interests and hobbies that are largely right wing or conservative. So if they are doing something interesting or are highly participatory in the discussion communities surrounding those interests, the clashes are inevitable. This is why the perception from right wingers will be "She's an entryist" because they see what is going on and consider it a purposeful infiltration.
But I don't necessarily think that. I think that a liberal enthusiastically dug into the homesteading space, which is overwhelmingly right wing and libertarian. A right wing account might go "oh cool, homesteading" and follow her, only to see a political discussion have a jarring difference of frame. But what does feel a bit more nefarious or at least distasteful, is the borrowing of right wing lingua franca such as naming the podcast "Doomer" optimism.
Rizoma is not an anon. Not culturally, not psychologically, not literally. So for a crowd of people who already dislike her for her ill fitting psychological frame for the space, using our words feels like a trespass that is deserving of contempt and further reinforces feelings that she is trying to co-opt at the very least the "energy" of what is a dominantly RW/conservative/Libertarian zone of influence. And with so few zones of cultural influence that we dominate compared to the "normiesphere" people are understandably defensive. We don't want a liberal to be successful or popular in homesteading, because that's our treehouse and there is so little left for them to take from us culturally as it is.
The same argument can apply to libertarian or anarchists who are actually just liberals or tankies in the gun community. A lot of fairweather idiots going "I don't care if she's got a dick, we talk about AK's together!" and time and time again it must be reinforced that hobbies are not enough to build any real loyalty between groups of a vastly disparate ideological frame that are in deep conflict with one another.
Sorry for the verbal vomit, I was typing as I was listening. But I appreciate the attention you gave the thread, and felt I would reciprocate.
Thanks for giving it a listen, and for sharing this thorough response! I'm glad I was able to do an adequate job representing your perspective. 🙏
"if my tone sounds like I'd run him over with a bobcat on the way to solving this problem"
I laughed a little bit at this because I don't perceive that level of hostility at all. There are a lot of people who are too sensitive, or who haven't been exposed to legitimately challenging thought, who mistake passion and assertiveness as aggression.
I enjoy the passion and bold assertion. The larger point is that I've been very positively influenced by right-wing anons and their contributions to intellectual discourse, even if I haven't been thoroughly radicalized.
I am never sure how people take my tone, since every frame has a different perception of others. It's mostly a GWOT veteran trait, we hurl expletives even when we're not angry and when we're on a roll talking about something we're interested in it gets pretty animated.
I mean yesterday I told RFK Jr. his clan deserved the curse it got for lobotomizing rosemary kennedy after he tweeted about his stance on affirmative action, I can get pretty crazy when I'm on a roll.