From: M. Taylor Saotome-Westlake Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2022 17:42:01 +0000 (-0800) Subject: morning poke (walrus, soldiers) X-Git-Url: http://unremediatedgender.space/source?a=commitdiff_plain;h=7934516ab39e428cc84481b768e91496b625069c;p=Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git morning poke (walrus, soldiers) --- diff --git a/content/drafts/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md b/content/drafts/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md index 5537eb3..43cfcec 100644 --- a/content/drafts/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md +++ b/content/drafts/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md @@ -326,9 +326,7 @@ Yudkowsky [sometimes](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/K2c3dkKErsqFd28Dh/prices-o I just—would have hoped that abandoning the intellectual legacy of his Sequences, would be a price too high for such a paltry benefit? -Michael Vassar [said](https://twitter.com/HiFromMichaelV/status/1221771020534788098), "Rationalism starts with the belief that arguments aren't soldiers, and ends with the belief that soldiers are arguments." - -If the price you put on the intellectual integrity of your so-called "rationalist" community is similar to that of the Snodgrass for Mayor campaign, you shouldn't be surprised if intelligent, discerning people accord similar levels of credibility to the two groups' output. +Michael Vassar [said](https://twitter.com/HiFromMichaelV/status/1221771020534788098), "Rationalism starts with the belief that arguments aren't soldiers, and ends with the belief that soldiers are arguments." By accepting that soldiers are arguments ("I don't see what the alternative is besides getting shot"), Yudkowsky is accepting the end of rationalism in this sense. If the price you put on the intellectual integrity of your so-called "rationalist" community is similar to that of the Snodgrass for Mayor campaign, you shouldn't be surprised if intelligent, discerning people accord similar levels of credibility to the two groups' output. I see the phrase "bad faith" thrown around more than I think people know what it means. "Bad faith" doesn't mean "with ill intent", and it's more specific than "dishonest": it's [adopting the surface appearance of being moved by one set of motivations, while actually acting from another](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith). diff --git a/content/drafts/book-review-johnny-the-walrus.md b/content/drafts/book-review-johnny-the-walrus.md index bc0f600..8e56daa 100644 --- a/content/drafts/book-review-johnny-the-walrus.md +++ b/content/drafts/book-review-johnny-the-walrus.md @@ -6,4 +6,8 @@ Status: draft This is a terrible children's book that could have been great if the author could have just [_pretended to be subtle_](/tag/deniably-allegorical/). Our protagonist, Johnny, is a kid who loves to play make-believe. One day, he pretends to be a walrus, fashioning "tusks" for himself with wooden spoons, and "flippers" from socks. Unfortunately, Johnny's mother takes him literally: she has him put on gray makeup, gives him worms to eat, and takes him to the zoo to be with the "other" walruses. Uh-oh! Will Johnny have to live as a "walrus" forever? -With competent execution, this could be a great children's book! The premise is not realistic—no sane parent would conclude their child is _literally_ a walrus _because he said so_—but it's a kind of non-realism common in children's literature, attributing simple, caricatured motivations to characters in order to tell a silly, memorable story. If there happens to be an obvious analogy between the silly, memorable story and an ideological fad affecting otherwise-sane parents in the current year ... +With competent execution, this could be a great children's book! The premise is not realistic—no sane parent would conclude their child is _literally_ a walrus _because he said so_—but it's a kind of non-realism common in children's literature, attributing simple, caricatured motivations to characters in order to tell a silly, memorable story. If there happens to be an obvious parallel between the silly, memorable story and an ideological fad affecting otherwise-sane parents in the current year, that's plausibly (or at least deniably) not the _author's_ fault ... + +But Matt Walsh completely flubs the execution by making it a satire rather than an allegory! The result is cringey right-wing propaganda rather than a silly, memorable story that I could read to a child without feeling ashamed. (It's well-known that the left can't meme, but that advantage doesn't secure the outcome of the culture war if the right can't write children's literature.) + +Rather than being a silly non-realistic children's-literature grown-up, Johnny's mother is portrayed as being duped by social media. ("But Johnny's mom's phone said it's not just pretend / 'Only a bigot would say that! How dare you offend!'", with angry emoji and inverted Facebook thumbs-up icons bubbling out of her phone into the scene.) \ No newline at end of file