> Compare RationalWiki and the neoreactionaries. RationalWiki provides a steady stream of mediocrity. Almost nothing they say is outrageously wrong, but almost nothing they say is especially educational to someone who is smart enough to have already figured out that homeopathy doesn’t work. Even things of theirs I didn’t know – let’s say some particular study proving homeopathy doesn’t work that I had never read before – doesn’t provide me with real value, since they fit exactly into my existing worldview without teaching me anything new ...
> The Neoreactionaries provide a vast stream of garbage with occasional nuggets of absolute gold in them ... The garbage doesn’t matter because I can tune it out.
Writing about it once or twice could have been interesting, but constantly returning to neoreactionary content over and over again to mine what he calls “nuggets of absolute gold” starts to become an endorsement.
Scott’s entire writing style is based on tricks like faux-humbleness and pretending to present an unbiased “both sides” overview of a topic while planting seeds that lead the reader to a specific conclusion.
To understand it, re-read his “Kolmogorov Complicity” essay: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/23/kolmogorov-complicity-...
He’s been telegraphing his intentions and strategies out in the open for anyone who’s been paying attention.
https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2021/02/backstabber-brennan-kni...
He's a neoreactionary apologist and self-admitted scientific racist. Not...exactly a bastion of unbiased opinion.
(And that's without getting into the deeply problematic nature of the capital-R Rationalists' horrible abuse of Bayesian reasoning as a replacement for actual expertise or scientific inquiry. Assigning arbitrary likelihoods to your opinions about the world does not make you unbiased!)