Truth but being about Darwinism was so cringe from Yarvin. Truth is the intellect conforming to reality. Darwinism can’t even explain thought and the fact he still doesn’t understand that is why he will never be a good thinker
A fairly accurate assessment of the “aesthetic” that she presented… Indeed, her blank stares into the audience, her refusal to face Yarvin or even look him in the eyes as he spoke… it all felt almost “uncanny valley”.
However, I would pushback that she is a true believer in a world that has already passed by. No, SHE IS the power structure, SHE is the member of the ruling class in this conversation, not Yarvin, and he knows that.
It’s half of the point he makes all the time in Gray Mirror. Why else would he say the NYT is a main node of the Cathedral? Because the NYT has power. Harvard has power. You, me, and metaphorically, Yarvin, are the ones writing on a social media app about “big ideas”. She is getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars (base pay) to spout platitudes. Who is really in power? Trump threatening their grants? Do we believe that will stop Harvard…?
Anyway I agree with your overall assessment of her and most of her cluelessness, but let us not misinterpret the power dynamic here. Yarvin is sharp enough to know better.
There are some female philosophers and other academics I strongly respect, but agree that the current critical mass if females in politics and the university has softened what is by necessity a profession that needs a high level of disagreeableness.
I was very entertained and annoyed when she said to the audience, "Anyone who is against egalitarianism should have to answer for why they are against it." Yarvin made his upper-primates argument, and she totally ignored it.
I felt like the discussion was too discursive—it really needed sharper, more focused back-and-forth exchanges. They kept jumping around instead of sticking with a single point long enough to dig into it.
Truth but being about Darwinism was so cringe from Yarvin. Truth is the intellect conforming to reality. Darwinism can’t even explain thought and the fact he still doesn’t understand that is why he will never be a good thinker
Solid writing style and tone, no vitriol.
A fairly accurate assessment of the “aesthetic” that she presented… Indeed, her blank stares into the audience, her refusal to face Yarvin or even look him in the eyes as he spoke… it all felt almost “uncanny valley”.
However, I would pushback that she is a true believer in a world that has already passed by. No, SHE IS the power structure, SHE is the member of the ruling class in this conversation, not Yarvin, and he knows that.
It’s half of the point he makes all the time in Gray Mirror. Why else would he say the NYT is a main node of the Cathedral? Because the NYT has power. Harvard has power. You, me, and metaphorically, Yarvin, are the ones writing on a social media app about “big ideas”. She is getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars (base pay) to spout platitudes. Who is really in power? Trump threatening their grants? Do we believe that will stop Harvard…?
Anyway I agree with your overall assessment of her and most of her cluelessness, but let us not misinterpret the power dynamic here. Yarvin is sharp enough to know better.
So basically... we shouldn't have women in political discourse. Somehow men of days past knew better
There are some female philosophers and other academics I strongly respect, but agree that the current critical mass if females in politics and the university has softened what is by necessity a profession that needs a high level of disagreeableness.
Professor Allen and Curtis Yarvin are both "no bueno"
We need other people advancing better arguments on political theory.
Who do you recommend? Honest question.
Oren Cass
“The election of Donald Trump couldn’t be because of Democracy, because that was a bad outcome…”
They are struggling with theodicy.
My Lord that Harvard report. It's like an apologetic defense that the purpose of higher education is sniffing your own farts.
I was very entertained and annoyed when she said to the audience, "Anyone who is against egalitarianism should have to answer for why they are against it." Yarvin made his upper-primates argument, and she totally ignored it.
I felt like the discussion was too discursive—it really needed sharper, more focused back-and-forth exchanges. They kept jumping around instead of sticking with a single point long enough to dig into it.