Fascists were always cringe. Himmler was a weird occultist. Goering was a drug addict still high on his glorious from World War I. Hitler was a profoundly lazy man with terrible taste in art. There were normal fascists (there had to be), but the leadership was always cringe. Unfortunately, being cringe doesn’t stop a movement from killing vast numbers of people.
Is this what Brits felt like with Dominic Cummings?
The arguments in favour of Walz increase without bound.
The rationalists - sometimes making me question my commitment to prison abolition. Actually, not frequently enough, considering how few are arrested.
Will Ellison include her love for hierarchical, power-struggle Chinese harem dynamics in this novella or is she saving it for the sequel?
I’m mildly surprised at Krugman, since I never got a particularly racist vibe from him. (This is 100% an invitation to be corrected.) Annoyed that 1) I recognise so many names and 2) so many of the people involved are still influential.
Interested in why Johnathan Marks is there though. He’s been pretty anti-scientific racism if memory serves. I think he’s even complained about how white supremacists stole the term human biodiversity. Now, I’m curious about the deep history of this group. Marks published his book in 1995 and this is a list from 1999, so was the transformation of the term into a racist euphemism already complete by then? Or is this discussion group more towards the beginning.
Similarly, curious how out some of these people were at the time. E.g. I know that Harpending was seen as a pretty respectable anthropologist up until recently, despite his virulent racism. But I’ve never been able to figure out how much his earlier racism was covert vs. how much 1970s anthropology accepted racism vs. how much this reflects his personal connections with key people in the early field of hunter-gatherer studies.
Oh also, super amused that Pinker and MacDonald are in the group at the same time, since I’m pretty sure Pinker denounced MacDonald for anti-Semitism in quite harsh language (which I haven’t seen mirrored when it comes to anti-black racism). MacDonald’s another weird one. He defended Irving when Irving was trying to silence Lipstadt, but in Evan’s account, while he disagrees with MacDonald, he doesn’t emphasise that MacDonald is a raging anti-Semite and white supremacist. So, once again, interested in how covert vs. overt MacDonald was at the time.
An overly wordy misogynistic racist, who seeks to covertly transmit ideas from neo-fascist and race realist groups such as the Occidental Review to his primarily ‘liberal’ audience, and a major leader within a techno-utopian/apocalyptic sex cult, which for some reason is actually influential within tech policy.
Haven’t watched Z’s video, but I’d also note I’m deeply sceptical that the nerd/jock distinction was ever real past maybe the 90s.
In my own school (and those of all the people I’ve discussed it with), if you were in advanced classes, you almost always played a sport. Even geeky interests - like video games, some anime (Yu-Gi-Oh, Pokemon), and to a lesser extent comics - were incredibly popular. There were cliques, but those cliques were normally personality and friend based rather than academic vs. sport. If there were a divide, it was between those who were socially skilled and those who were not, but that didn’t neatly map onto whether you were smart or not.
Even as a kid, I mostly thought of the nerd/jock stuff as being a marketing ploy, rather than reflecting my own experiences. Which isn’t to say you wouldn’t get people identifying as nerds or geeks, but to say that the actual social reality didn’t seem to match.