TechTakes

2621 readers

45 users here now

Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.

This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.

For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

dgerard@awful.systems

Stubsack: weekly thread for sneers not worth an entire post, week ending 26th July 2026 (awful.systems)

submitted 1 day ago by dgerard@awful.systems to c/techtakes@awful.systems

38 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Have a sneer percolating in your system but not enough time/energy to make a whole post about it? Go forth and be mid - welcome to the Stubsack, your first port of call for learning fresh Awful you’ll near-instantly regret.

Any awful.systems sub may be subsneered in this subthread, techtakes or no.

If your sneer seems higher quality than you thought, feel free to cut’n’paste it into its own post — there’s no quota for posting and the bar really isn’t that high.

The post Xitter web has spawned so many “esoteric” right wing freaks, but there’s no appropriate sneer-space for them. I’m talking redscare-ish, reality challenged “culture critics” who write about everything but understand nothing. I’m talking about reply-guys who make the same 6 tweets about the same 3 subjects. They’re inescapable at this point, yet I don’t see them mocked (as much as they should be)

Like, there was one dude a while back who insisted that women couldn’t be surgeons because they didn’t believe in the moon or in stars? I think each and every one of these guys is uniquely fucked up and if I can’t escape them, I would love to sneer at them.

last week's edition

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] scruiser@awful.systems 7 points 23 hours ago (3 children)

That was kind of a nothing post? I think the author is misrepresenting the growth (or at least failing to connect the most important dots) of the lesswrong rationalist by portraying them as a natural evolution of the skeptics movement and not the deliberate cultivation of an audience by Eliezer looking for people to spread his ideology to and by Thiel looking to influence farm and create a cult incubator. And then the post is titled "my falling out with the rationalist", and they write they "wanted to offer a more personal perspective " but they don't actually discuss that much of the personal angle either...

[–] rook@awful.systems 4 points 8 hours ago

The author tends to cull his own social media posts pretty aggressively if they get too much attention, or the wrong kind of attention, and it’s possible there’s more he wanted to say in the blog post but he chickened out at the last minute and self-censored it.

But yeah, it felt like half a post.

[–] dgerard@awful.systems 6 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

yeah, subculturally they're unrelated strains

like, just factually in terms of history, they're unrelated strains. LW rats come in a straight line from the Extropians in the '90s. The previous-millennium skeptics have crossover with those guys, but they're not the same as a group at all.

[–] blakestacey@awful.systems 5 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

And the Movement Skeptics of the aughts looked at Kurzweil's singulatarianism and asked what he was smoking, while basically ignoring that the Holy Sequences existed. I should know, I was there.

[–] dgerard@awful.systems 1 points 29 minutes ago

yeah, they mostly thought the lesswrongers were annoying weirdoes when they perceived them at all, e.g. rationalwiki

[–] CinnasVerses@awful.systems 5 points 2 hours ago

The biggest crossover between skeptics and rationalists I can think of is Julia Galef, and she podcasted with a philosopher who debated Yud once then decided it was infra dignitatem. She also dropped out of CFAR when it became more open that the rationality workshops were for finding Sarah Connor.

[–] Architeuthis@awful.systems 6 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

Yes exactly how can you write an entire thing treating rationalism like something you can do an apostasy out of and never mention Yud once.

I assume the personal perspective is him tacitly admitting to being attracted to skepticism for the debate bro culture, especially the parts that bordered on harassment. Even the inciting incident of "leaving rationalism" is framed more as him growing out of the need to long-form debate someone, specifically James Damore, the google engineer who published a manifesto about how women don't belong in tech.

I don't know the author so I don't know if it is important that he was fine with pranking the timecube guy but decided enough is enough when it was time to take a pro-feminist side.

[–] blakestacey@awful.systems 3 points 2 hours ago

Gene Ray actually came to MIT in person. I knew the people who invited him. They had a history of... performance-art kind of stunts on the boundary of good taste? Like calling attention to an obscure discretionary fund by running for student government on a promise that they would use it to bribe everyone who voted for them. One of them taught me to pick locks during rush week.