Anything that people say about the god complexes of :reddit-logo: moderators/admins has nothing on capital-R "Rationalists."

  • UlyssesT [he/him]
    hexagon
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    The problem is also that HPMOR, its writer, and the cult following that writer are not only fine with billionaires wielding undue power but want billionaires to have more power on top of that.

    "My entertainment has absolutely no effect on me" is an extremely common take on :reddit-logo: and it is attempting the nearly-impossible task of proving a negative. If entertainment has no effect on people, why does advertising have an effect on people (if it didn't, a massive trillion dollar industry would be entirely a waste of money and people's choices of products should have zero correlation between what is advertised to them and what they purchase)? If advertising has an effect on people, how can you claim that there's some sort of boundary, like a magic barrier, that surely prevents entertainment of similar media having a similar effect?

    I'm not calling for a cessation of literature treats or shows or movies for that matter. I have problematic favorites of my own (Dune is my favorite book of all time and the gender politics alone are really, really dated), and I think there's no need to put up all this unnecessary defense for bad people that use their fiction to further their bad agendas. Do you want to go to bat for Triumph of the Will next? Birth of a Nation? Mein Kampf?

    • Imbeggingyoutoread [any]
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      The problem is also that HPMOR, its writer, and the cult following that writer are not only fine with billionaires wielding undue power but want billionaires to have more power on top of that.

      Yeah, and if it wasn't Yud'wow'sky it would be another dipshit. Hell, there's still think tanks that give out university scholarships for Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged essays. The wealthy class rewards lapdogs that gratify their sense of self-importance.

      “My entertainment has absolutely no effect on me” is an extremely common take on and it is attempting the nearly-impossible task of proving a negative

      It's not near impossible, it is impossible. But besides, the actual claim that would fit here is 'X work had Y effect on Z group/individual', which is a falsifiable statement, but also pretty difficult to actually prove. But it's also not the argument I'm making. I never actually made the claim that media doesn't affect people? I have two central claims:

      1. Authors views don't automatically transfer via their works.
      2. The political beliefs of people cannot be solely attributed to the fiction that they consume.

      If you want to talk about those claims, then let's have at it, but I'm not going bother with the bait and switch that advertising, a medium with an entirely different end and model, is somehow equivalent to fiction consumption.

      Do you want to go to bat for Triumph of the Will next? Birth of a Nation? Mein Kampf?

      Super good-faith brah, really loved doing this with you.

      • UlyssesT [he/him]
        hexagon
        ·
        2 years ago

        "Someone else would have done that exact same thing and got the exact same kickbacks from billionaires and start the exact same institutions of MIRI, LessWrong, and SlateStarCodex with that billionaire's windfall money" is what you are claiming. That's, again, very presumptive and seems excessively defensive for something I'm not really threatening and have no power to remove from existence even if I wanted to.

        I have to say it a lot more than I wish I had to, but I'll say it again: it's possible to enjoy entertainment while accepting the existence of criticism of that same entertainment.

        "Super good-faith brah, really loved doing this with you."

        After that, yeah, I'm going to continue to disagree with you and know that arguing with you further won't go anywhere good.