Coxon: oh shit don't give away how deep in I am with the rationalistsCoxon: I'm totally not a rationalist, I just hung out with them for a decade because I admire their huge swole brains and how right they are about everythingCoxon: nailed it

[dzajew@social.dzajew.xyz]

@gryphonmyers
Thanks, I hate it. Also, per wiki article about this guy: "His fanfiction novel Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality uses plot elements from J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter series to illustrate topics in science and rationality."
Wtf XD
 @davidgerard

[davidgerard@circumstances.run]

@Dangerous_beans rationalists cover the entire spectrum from libertarian to neoreactionary, all race scientist

[davidgerard@circumstances.run]

@aslakr @tante 10% chance quorn destroys humanity

[nicovel0@mastodon.social]

@davidgerard “I am intuitively opposed to […] consequentialist intuitions” is an amazing self own.

[davidgerard@circumstances.run]

@jackielovescompchem32 they don't themselves call it "rationalism", they call it "rationality" and themselves "rationalists", as in The Cool Smart Guys Who Are Right that's our proper name you should address us by

[wilson6923@veganism.social]

@davidgerard @simon in fact, I learned how to not breathe at all. Ever.

[delafin@climatejustice.social]

@tante He doesn't have any "real" arguments. He admits himself its "intuition", but also just a form of ideological signalling to others, pandering to the fascists,... @davidgerard

[spirit@cybernetic.monster]

@davidgerard every crevice of this guy's navel has been committed to memory.

[jer@chirp.enworld.org]

@davidgerard @Dangerous_beans I actually assume it's because he's distinguishing himself from the "dangerous rationalists" like the Zizians, who are vegan and polyamorous IIRC, and not the "good rationalists" like the fascists who believe that Christian Nationalists in the US are correct about everything practically, they just have the wrong god that they're worshiping

[davidgerard@circumstances.run]

@Jer @Dangerous_beans ah didn't click he meant the zizians

[celeduc@mastodon.social]

@NewtonMark @davidgerard "I am intuitively opposed to polyamory, veganism, and consequentialist intuitions."

[wordshaper@weatherishappening.network]

@davidgerard can’t imagine why a dweeby 20-something is hanging out with Silicon Valley’s premier weird sex cult. Completely a surprise, who could ever have seen that one coming.

[abucci@buc.ci]

@davidgerard@circumstances.run

uniquely able to be correct about topics removed from daily experience

I wonder if they are uniquely able to be correct about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

I certainly trust them to be correct about factual questions

Factual questions, like those that are enmeshed with daily experience, which is what we tend to mean when we refer to "facts". Is he really trying to say "I trust them to be correct about questions concerning daily experience because they have specialized minds that are uniquely able to be correct about topics removed from daily experience."

He thinks we're all living in a giant sudoku puzzle, where we can "be correct" or "be incorrect" and we can know the difference and it's all tidy and easy (if you have a uniquely specialized mind). I suppose that sums up rationalists generally.

[doombunny@toot.wales]

@davidgerard Why am I not surprised that Harry Frotter believes in this whole scene? It would also be interesting to know how much he was paid to spout this nonsense to a craven and credulous press.

I suspect the talk about a mutual cessation treaty is entirely down to the people funding this tripe demanding the promised returns on "investment" *right now*, meaning they need another way to say "look over there!" in financial jargon.

[anarchoninawrites@jorts.horse]

@davidgerard "Look, I don't know if you can call giving truckers handies through a glory hole at the rest stop "sex" per se..."

[cyberquixote@infosec.exchange]

@AnarchoNinaWrites @davidgerard

“Im too rational to be controlled”

[zeh@mstdn.io]

@davidgerard
this for some reason reminded me of sloppy thinking as a qualifier. it sure reads as slop (which was probably the connect my brain drew), but the qualifier is too mild. that shit there is in no way a form of thinking, at all

[paco@infosec.exchange]

@davidgerard I’m doing what I can to hasten the Quornpocalypse!

@aslakr @tante

[ncrazed@fd00.space]

@davidgerard I felt like I was having a stroke trying to read his part

[robinsyl@meow.social]

@Jer why does the representation that polyamorous folks get have to be *checks notes* Zizians and SBF