Jump to content

Talk:LessWrong

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
icon
Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Connection to Neoreactionaries

[edit]

The connection of LessWrong and other rationalist blogs to the neoreactionary movement is widely commented on. See also the relevant sources cited in rationalist community. Therefore, it does not put undue weight to mention it in this article, as @Secarctangent is trying to imply. Eigenbra (talk) 15:29, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are misunderstanding the material that's being removed. The material being removed is an WP:UNDUE inclusion of a single survey to suggest that there is less connection between LessWrong and neoreaction than reported by other RS. Simonm223 (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What reliable sources are you referring to in "than reported by other RS"? I'm not familiar with Fusion TV and don't see it on WP:RSP, so I didn't try to restore that source. I did check the Google Books link provided for the 2020 source to verify the claims and publisher info. I'm struggling to understand your perspective on why a published book would be WP:UNDUE. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources are relevant? I only see the New Yorker article used near a mention of "neoreaction". WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Last time I looked Neoreaction: A Basilisk was cited here. I suppose it's possible it got cut... Simonm223 (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sandifer created Eruditorum Press. I would consider that book essentially a WP:SELFPUB. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 14:37, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Really convenient to say nearly the only person who isn't in the community to write about its politics doesn't count. Simonm223 (talk) 11:21, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you had sources to support your position, you've now had an opportunity to share them. Also, I didn't say N:AB could not be included in some form, but it doesn't appear to support your position. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 13:03, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It makes multiple references to LessWrong as a hub of neoreactionary discourse. Simonm223 (talk) 13:09, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So your takeaway from that is to remove all sources that mention Neoreaction from this article? I remain confused. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 13:24, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, my takeaway was to remove the cherrypicked claims that LessWrong is not a hub of neoreactionary discourse as undue and non-neutral. Simonm223 (talk) 13:32, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And your response was just to revert claiming it was stable. WP:ONUS for inclusion lies with the party who wants to include material. I am not the only editor to have removed that edit. You should self-revert. Simonm223 (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose adding Simonm223's non-RS sourced, undue content. Secarctangent (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please actually look at the content you are reviewing before removing. My material came from a peer reviewed WP:BESTSOURCE and it absolutely was not edit warring. Simonm223 (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Peer review doesn't mean that a source is RS: "A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs" Secarctangent (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, it might be RS and I might be wrong, but an assertion that a journal is peer reviewed is insufficient to make something RS. Secarctangent (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've started a WP:RS/N thread to clarify that Third Text is a reliable source despite your... unorthodox interpretation of WP:BESTSOURCES. Simonm223 (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that Third Text is a deeply respected journal and Ana Teixeira Pinto is a deeply respected academic. Your speculation that it might not be an RS is, meanwhile, entirely ungrounded. Simonm223 (talk) 17:20, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You continue to fail to provide any evidence of your claim, which might be right.
Note that this is still WP:UNDUE and I object to its addition on this point, and you should seek consensus before adding this edit. Secarctangent (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support citing the Third Text source in the article. I think it's reliable. Zero Contradictions (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support adding this high-quality source. @Simonm223 has repeatedly provided evidence that you could easily check by following a few links. Instead, you are choosing to ignore evidence in favor of being disruptive. Eigenbra (talk) 18:24, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree based on the discussion on WP:RS/N that this is a RS for art, even though it seems odd to cite it for other purposes.
Engage on WP:UNDUE, please. I see a revert made https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LessWrong&oldid=1304381364 that has not engaged with this latter concern. I am not reverting it because I don't want folks to think I'm edit warring instead of in good faith.
However, please explain why this degree of focus on a minority of a minority of an obscure web forum's views is "appropriate to its significance to the subject"? Secarctangent (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the preceding paragraph in the Neoreaction section makes it clear to readers that Neoreactionaries are indeed a small minority of users on the LessWrong forum. Nevertheless, I think that LessWrong still has a strong enough connection to the neo-reactionary movement to satisfy WP:UNDUE and make it worth mentioning in the article. Like, why the ethnonationalist blog "More Right" emerge on LessWrong, rather than some other place on the Internet? In any case, I think most people would be able to discern that only a minority of the LessWrong community has ethnonationalist or "fascist" views, due to the appropriate and well-source preceding paragraph.
I think Loki made a good point on the WP:RS/N thread about how Third Text may have questionable reliability regarding the accuracy of statements on politics, economics, and technology, due to its focus on art. I never considered this point, but I hope other people discuss it. I think that Simonm223 and Alalch E. have been unnecessarily aggressive in their responses to you, and I apologize for that. Zero Contradictions (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I sometimes forget that a lot of people don't spend as much time reading interdisciplinary humanities journals as I do. Just to clarify and, per @Bobfrombrockley below as well, Third Text may be an "art theory" journal but this very much includes political theory. And, in particular please remember that a key definition of fascism is the Walter Benjamin definition of fascism as the aestheticization of politics. As such a journal that is heavily involved in aesthetic theory has, you know, valid things to say about that. Beyond this there is the author, Ana Teixeira Pinto, whose work absolutely is involved with politics such as in the book Death Wall: Entropy and the Chronopolitics of Modernity. It's rather frustrating, when dealing with a niche political topic, to be told that two of the very few legitimate experts to have written at any length on the topic somehow don't count. I went to Pinto instead of getting into an argument about Sandifer's work constituting an WP:EXPERTSPS position but the immediate response was to claim Pinto was unreliable. Frankly it seems like certain editors think only Curtis Yarvin is reliable to talk about this community. That is unacceptable. Simonm223 (talk) 11:26, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure you have a very high IQ and all, but has this got anything to do with the article? jp×g🗯️ 14:19, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's an explanation of why this source is a good and reliable one, despite objections that it is an "art theory" journal. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:44, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple reputable sources make the connection between LessWrong and neoreaction. On the other hand, your source for the claim that this is a minority of a minority among LessWrong is an informal community survey, which is clearly not reliable. I don't know what you mean by "this degree of focus", but clearly this connection warrants a subsection, and is in no way undue. Eigenbra (talk) 23:29, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate you not making inaccurate claims about my sourcing.
My reason for saying that this is a "minority of a minority" is that she is referencing some activity individuals who posted on another splinter blog, this "More Right" thing, as far as I can tell? Secarctangent (talk) 00:07, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ziz LoSota is also a minority (an individual) of a minority (the Zizians), but he is nevertheless mentioned in the article because there is a reliable source that reported on him. Zero Contradictions (talk) 00:21, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support inclusion of this material. Third Text, an interdisciplinary journal, is a reliable source for the subjects of its articles and not just for a narrow art topics and is certainly reliable for this. If multiple RSs make the connection, it is due. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:00, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She also explicitly mentions Roko's Basilisk and Yarvin's (objectively hilarious) reaction to it and describes the Basilisk incident at some length, demonstrating it as being significant to her overall thesis. Or are Yarvin and Roko fringe figures at the LessWrong community? Simonm223 (talk) 11:28, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yarvin and Roko absolutely are fringe figures in the LessWrong community, if that. Yarvin in particular had almost no interactions, and Roko’s involvement has been minimal and most of it was fifteen years ago. The infamous basilisk seems to have been much more of a thing outside of the LessWrong community than inside it. Gbear605 (talk) 14:11, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yarvin is a fringe figure... on his blog... that he owns... I'm sorry but that doesn't track. Simonm223 (talk) 14:13, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but what are you talking about? Curtis Yarvin does not own LessWrong in any sense. If it's owned by anyone, it's Oliver Habryka (who is the CEO of the company that runs LessWrong) or Eliezer Yudkowsky (who founded the site), and neither of them are Yarvin, who runs an entirely different blog and who both Yudkowsky and Habryka have stated they disagree with strongly. Gbear605 (talk) 14:17, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'll strike that as in error. Simonm223 (talk) 14:23, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In light of this, it is somewhat concerning to me that you are making reverts on the article on the aforementioned basis of your own authority in the subject matter. If I was reverting on World War II and arguing on the talk page, and I realized I was wrong about which countries Roosevelt and Hirohito were in charge of, I would probably disengage. jp×g🗯️ 14:28, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I only see a single revert by @Simonm223 on this article in the last three months. You might be overreacting. Eigenbra (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made a stupid factual mistake because I was upset. I owned up to it and struck immediately. And, yeah, I've not been reverting much at all here in part because I'm actually very strict with myself about edit warring behaviour and avoid second reverts most of the time. None of my contributions violated any policy. Simonm223 (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned about the following text in the current revision, in particular the part to which I have applied bold italics:

Ana Teixeira Pinto, writing for the journal Third Text in 2019, describes Less Wrong as being a component in a "new configuration of fascist ideology taking shape under the aegis of, and working in tandem with, neoliberal governance" - pointing out that, not only was it the origin place of the Roko's Basilisk but that, also, the ethno-nationalist blog "More Right" emerged out of the LessWrong community.[23]

I have the article PDF open to the page with the "new configuration" quote, and I have reviewed the sentences and paragraphs surrounding. I do not see any point at which the article characterizes LessWrong, either directly or by implication, as a component, or anything similar, of a "new configuration of fascist ideology."

The article does seem to suggest that Roko's Basilisk is an idea that is helpful, intentionally or no, to far-right ideology. But even if we were to grant that this argument is entirely convincing, and that it proves Roko's Basilisk is a component of fascist ideology, it simply does not follow that LessWrong, the place where the idea was born, is itself a component of fascist ideology. By the same token, the fact that a LessWrong forum participant made a splinter forum called "More Right" does not make LessWrong, itself, a component of fascist ideology.

Wikipedia has a responsibility not to tar the reputations of living people and organizations with quotes that misrepresent their source. If the text is not amended to remove the misrepresentation, I will amend or remove it.

I see the addition was first made on August 5, 2025 by User:Simonm223. Please let me know if you believe I have missed anything.

The following alternative text would satisfy my concerns:

Ana Teixeira Pinto, writing for the journal Third Text in 2019, describes Roko's Basilisk and the ethno-nationalist blog "More Right" (founded by a LessWrong participant) as phenomena related to a "new configuration of fascist ideology taking shape under the aegis of, and working in tandem with, neoliberal governance".

Getnormality (talk) 21:03, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're under-generalizing to carve out Roko's Basilisk from the forum on which it was posted. Simonm223 (talk) 11:19, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You won't find anything about under-generalizing in Wikipedia's policies. What you will find is WP:OR, a prohibition on original research:

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources. (emphasis mine)

While I stand by my initial point that this original research is misrepresentative of the source, the only thing that matters here is that it is original research. Getnormality (talk) 13:28, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is supposed to be the connection between Roko's Basilisk and fascism? Or, I guess, for that matter fascism and neoliberalism? Is it explained at all? These seem like basically unrelated things. jp×g🗯️ 15:06, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's explained in the source that Getnormality is misinterpreting. Simonm223 (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I criticized your interpretation of the source by pointing out an objective non-sequitur. If something arguably Christian is said on an internet forum, it doesn't make the forum Christian. If something arguably Dadaist is said on an internet forum, it doesn't make the forum Dadaist. And if something arguably fascist is said on a forum, it doesn't make the forum fascist. There is nothing controversial about any of these statements.
You answered by contradicting me with a subjective opinion that I am "under-generalizing". Here you contradict my statements again, this time completely baselessly.
In prior discussions on this talk page, I've been faced with an unconstructive response pattern in which objective evidence and logic is met with disengagement, or with assertion, distortion, and contradiction that is either baseless or subjective. I will continue pointing this pattern out when it occurs, as the track record is moving in the direction of WP:GASLIGHTING and patient tolerance on my part has not proven effective. Getnormality (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The connections made in the article revolve around the idea that the basilisk symbolizes racial or ethnic groups -- Jews and Asians are named specifically -- that fascists/white-supremacists/alt-righters accuse/suspect to be seeking some kind of superior position over white people. Whenever the basilisk is invoked, for example by Roko, the invokation is claimed to be tapping into historical anti-Semitic stories and right-wing "fantasies" involving these threatening groups, and it is "not far-fetched to assume" that this is intentional.
At this point, I want to be clear that I am not here taking any position, positive or negative, on the inclusion of such material in the article. But others have advocated that we include or cite this material for years, as the Talk page archives from 2024 will show. Therefore, I think it is important that everyone in this conversation understand what the article says, so that any material we reach consensus to include is accurately represented. Getnormality (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the summary. I have not read the full article, but the conclusions the article draws sound very far-fetched (I don't see any direct or indirect reference to race in Roko's original post). Alenoach (talk) 05:14, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll take a position: "lol". jp×g🗯️ 05:56, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, at a personal level, I find it completely astonishing that editors feel entitled to behave as they do on these talk pages, but apparently that is the state of Wikipedia in 2025. I feel like I'm humbly asking that "horses are bigoted[1][2][3]" be removed from the Horses page, or at least be amended to "bigots have sometimes been observed in horse stables[1][2][3]". I have supported this by a diligently researched, Wikipolicy-conscious, critical analysis of each citation, while vastly more experienced editors, with many barnstars and accolades and such, howl and throw tomatoes at me for daring to defend horses from this self-evidently correct and reliably-sourced claim. But I love Wikipedia, so what can I say other than please sir, may I have some more?
At this point, there's a part of me that wants to just paste whole pages of this Third Text article straight onto the LessWrong wiki page, and let readers draw their own conclusions as to whether they can trust a group of editors that see fit to rely on such material. Getnormality (talk) 08:52, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't doing anything wrong; you are experiencing WP:STONEWALLING. jp×g🗯️ 10:14, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LessWrong&oldid=1319375084"