site banner
non_radical_centrist  1yr ago (astralcodexten.com)   2417 thread views

Book Review: Elon Musk[Scott Alexander]

astralcodexten.com

Scott Alexander’s review of a 2015 biography of Elon Musk. Elon Musk, to me, is one of the world’s most confusing people. He’s simultaneously both one of the smartest people in the world, creating billions of dollars of value in companies like Tesla and SpaceX, and one of the dumbest, in burning billions on Twitter. Scott’s review I think is a good explanation of what’s up with Musk.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

because there has been a years-long attempt by right-wingers to cast LGBT people and activism as intrinsically evil.

...Alternatively, right-wingers have been attempting to cast LGBT people as intrinsically opposed to coexistence with Christianity or any sort of traditional values. Which appears to be true, at least according to the vocal LGBT people driving policy. Or are we still pretending it's about what happens in the privacy of peoples' bedrooms?

Except Christians also believe themselves to be moral and LGBT people to be immoral due to the refusal to accept socially conservative values. I don't think what I said was wrong, nor do I think it is good for you to assume I was assigning either side any blame. I don't believe there's any point in trying to litigate the wording in this case.

Except Christians also believe themselves to be moral and LGBT people to be immoral due to the refusal to accept socially conservative values.

Sure, in the same way that divorcees and people who watch porn are immoral, and yet somehow neither of these are culture-war hotspots to anything approaching the degree LGBT is. LGBT is a lifestyle in a way that porn and divorce are not, and so it provides significantly more areas of contention to fight the culture war over. So the successor ideology has spent years pushing the idea that LGBT folks are "just like everyone else", a claim that again the vocal LGBT folks themselves frequently reject and some fairly significant evidence contradicts, and then hammering the Christians they've always hated for "bigotry" when we push back.

I don't think what I said was wrong, nor do I think it is good for you to assume I was assigning either side any blame.

"cast [X] as intrinsically evil" is not a neutral descriptor, nor in this case an accurate one. You are framing what is at worst mutual combat as an unprovoked attack.

Whether one is an ardent of Atheism+ supporter or a devout Christian from birth, there is agreement on the fact that right-wingers use a great deal of religious rhetoric and argumentation to push a narrative that LGBT and its followers are evil. The only disagreement would be on the accuracy of the statement, not whether it was accurate. I never said anything about provocation either.

No part of what you've said contradicts my description. Again, I don't understand why you want to try and win an optics battle in a place that is highly sympathetic to your viewpoint.

Suppose I claimed that whether one was an Atheism+ supporter or a devout Christian from birth, there is agreement on the fact that left-wingers use a great deal of rhetoric and argumentation to push a narrative that Christianity and its followers are evil. Would you hold that this statement was straightforwardly, unobjectionably factual? If so, I withdraw my objection. If not, I'd ask what you consider the difference between the two statements to be.

If I had to make any correction, it might be that both are not totally at the "other side is intrinsically evil" point. But a substantial symmetry certainly exists. Currently, I have no inherent objection to that line of argumentation as a premise for another, which is what I was doing.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats