Main Page Contact Register Log In


Oh, I didn't realize that debate authors are public now, so you can no longer just plop a debate topic there and forget about paying child support. :)

I just phrased the debate in the way that sounded most natural to me, a non-reactionary; that, and the fact that there was not much room for even longer titles. The point is, are NRx factual claims realistic? Too cynical? Too idealistic and bleeding-heart? (Seriously?) Is their doom-and-gloom vision of modernity and its future a mere result of a good, honest look at naked reality, bereft of any distorting influence of degeneracy-tinted glasses and personal mild dislike for the groups it wants restored to their inferior historical status?

It's an important question for anyone who wants maximal accuracy. Generally people's opinions are biased by wishful thinking. Neoreaction is just the farthest thing from that (if you're not a rich white manly male). If they're right, I guess one just has to bite the bullet and find ways to cope with their own disillusionment. If they're not, and just biased by an equal and opposite drive... the search for truth merrily goes on, with new-found assurance that there might be no second-class citizens in utopia.






> The point is, are NRx factual claims realistic?

Which claims do you have in mind? The claims about race and IQ aren't specifically NRx and are rather well supported by the evidence, both scientific and anecdotal.

Do you mean the claims about the cathedral and the nature of the US power structure?

> with new-found assurance that there might be no second-class citizens in utopia.

Now I wouldn't quite go that far. I mean the standard LW utopia more-or-less has humans becoming second class citizens to superhuman AI's and nobody seems too bothered by this.
62%
VoiceOfRa
stars0
Replies (1)