The New Right-Wing Tech Intelligentsia

https://bayareacurrent.com/meet-the-new-right-wing-tech-intelligentsia/

65 78 7 months ago

"Fascism doesn’t just exist in the marketplace of ideas, but in actual persons living in our cities, funding and constructing their visions for our collective future." said the man in the brownshirt, unaware of his own uniform

archagon2• 7 months ago

Throwaway accounts should be expunged from this site.

mikkupikku6• 7 months ago

Samo assures me, he counts Karl Marx among his personal influences, and says Palladium has in fact published a Marxist. What he doesn’t mention is that they prefer to publish monarchists and white supremacists.

Genuine monarchists are pretty rare in America. Not nonexistent but.. Can these claims be substantiated or am I reading breathless hyperbole?

Rated as centrist: https://www.allsides.com/news-source/palladium-magazine-medi...

Rated as right-center: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/palladium-magazine-bias-and-c...

(No idea if either of those are credible; they're just what DDG gave me. I did skim the headlines on Palladium's website and it looks like center-right pretentious slop to me.)

nyeah• 7 months ago

Genuine monarchists are pretty rare in America.

That was true once. Today Yarvin is massively influential. (I'm not explaining it, just reporting it.)

mikkupikku6• 7 months ago

I think you're massively overselling "Moldbug"'s influence. Most on the right today dismiss him for being jewish. Older right-leaning people are mostly stuck on the Facebook/Fox News reservation and don't read essays or blogs, ever, and probably aren't even literate enough to understand Yarvin let alone get talking into monarchism by him.

I will grant that he has influence, but definitely not "massive". Maybe he has traction with tech business elite as some say, I don't have a read on the pulse of that ultra-niche demographic.

jmyeet• 7 months ago

Part of this is just class interests. We now have a bunch of billionaires who--shock, horror--align with billionaire interests. The days of the maverick operating out of their garage are long over.

But another part of this is transhumanism, which is a weirdly popular movement in tech circles.

The core tenet is transhumanism is that humans will eventually transcend their current form and becomes who knows what exactly? Some view this as the singularity, which in part explains the AI hype.

But part of this is the latest incarnation of the prosperity gospel, an early (and now pervasive) idea that wealth is a demonstration that you are favored by God. Another version of this is the myth of meritocracy under capitalism. So if you're wealthy, it's because you're better than all "the poors", by definition.

How does this relate to transhumanism? Well, if you're better than everyone else, you think your genes should be passed on to this ultimate transhumanist future by, say, having a ton of children. Even if you're a completely absent father, it doesn't matter. You believe in the supremacy of your genetic heritage.

Another way to put all this is simply eugenics.

Der_Einzige• 7 months ago

Hypergamy is eugenics but socially acceptable. The left is trying to embrace its own "prosperity gospel" with "abundance theory", quite a bit before that it was it was "dialectical/historical materialism" with its inevitable contradictions which would eventually lead to a boom/bust cycle too large for capitalists to overcome it, guaranteeing the transition to a socialist state.

I don't see them clearly trying to go transhuman, I see them clearly trying to build AGI. Closer to "I have no mouth and I must scream" than any other particular dystopia IMHO.

TrainedMonkey• 7 months ago

But part of this is the latest incarnation of the prosperity gospel, an early (and now pervasive) idea that wealth is a demonstration that you are favored by God. Another version of this is the myth of meritocracy under capitalism. So if you're wealthy, it's because you're better than all "the poors", by definition.

There is a whole industry that caters to ultra wealthy and one of their core tenets is that customer is always right. This is problematic because negative feedback is an important mechanism of personal growth and self development. Thus we end up with ultra wealthy people being mostly disconnected from the society.

aerostable_slug• 7 months ago

This seems like a reach:

Print inevitably precipitates a face-to-face community, giving it the capacity to represent and in turn catalyze real-world movements.

I've never gone to a people-who-read-$PERIODICAL party. Ever. Maybe it's common for pro-union zines that the author used to contribute to, but Popular Science, Newsweek, or the like don't have any corresponding community associated with them. There's no Architectural Digest-affiliated underground interior decorating scene.

I think the author far overestimates the importance niche zines like the one they were a part of, or Palladium for that matter, have in the national dialogue.

igor478• 7 months ago

For the untainted, effective altruism (EA) is a very online social movement popular in tech circles, which was originally concerned with how to get rich philanthropists to donate to the most “effective” charities

Man this really makes me mad. Why do people love to hate on EA so much? Why is effectiveness a bad things? Is the author really advocating giving money to random charities? Or do they prefer no giving at all? Is it just that EAs make people feel guilty about their own charitable giving? Is there even a reasoned critique here, or is the author just picking up on a vibe against EA and going with it to give an air of smug knowing sophistication? A little wink and nod to the audience, who will of course have heard of EA, I mean who the hell is supposed to be reading this piece?

I stopped reading there. So frustrating.

GuinansEyebrows• 7 months ago

short answer: EA is a smokescreen for regressive tax policies and privatization that allows small groups to make large decisions that affect many people without allowing their input, involvement or consent.

igor478• 7 months ago

I think the world would be a better place if more people donated to charities, especially effective charities. I also, separately, believe in effective government that takes care of it's people, progressive tax rates, and democracy/input. I don't think these beliefs are in conflict.

Also I'm pretty sure that EA as a movement is only concerned with the former mission, and does not advocate for any of the bad policies you're worried about

estearum6• 7 months ago

A pretty key component of a charity being effective is doing things their beneficiaries actually value.

lentil_soup3• 7 months ago

There's some mention as to why in the article, I don't think it's about being effective but about it becoming a tag and movement and the people associated with it

"EA ... was originally concerned with how to get rich philanthropists to donate to the most “effective” charities but is now just as well known for its booster-doomerism about artificial general intelligence and for having had the convicted crypto fraudster Sam Bankman-Fried as a notorious benefactor"

igor478• 7 months ago

It's only known for doomerism and SBF because reporters like the FA author chose to focus on this, and not on, say, the hundreds of thousands of lives saved around the world by EA donors and their recipient organizations.

I gotta say, I'm also pretty annoyed at the guilt-by-association with the SBF thing. If word got out that SBF liked puppies, would his enemies forswear dogs? It seems pretty easy to disavow fraud and even crypto in general (I'm not a fan of crypto), while simultaneously embracing taking a giving pledge, figuring out metrics by which to judge philanthropies, and focusing donations on the effective orgs (by whatever metric makes sense to you). It's like our civilization has lost the ability to hold two ideas in mind at a time, or to think beyond "bad people are bad"

zozbot2347• 7 months ago

Translation: "The EA folks were talking about AI ethics before it was cool."

Iridescent_• 7 months ago

Who deserves to receive help (and, by contrast, who is undeserving of even basic decency) should never, ever be the decision of a few ploutocrats. The state should decide on such matters, and be the upholder of equality. Else, misery becomes a contest for who can be the most compelling, most attractive miserable to the elites.

igor478• 7 months ago

I think the whole point of EA is to avoid the misery contest and funnel philanthropy dollars in the most effective way, though there's a lot of disagreement inside the movement on what constitutes effectiveness.

On the radical statism -- I guess maybe? At least the in the US right now, we certainly don't have a government that's good at directing money to the most needy. See e.g. the while USAID fiasco. Even if we had a government willing to fund international aid, I still think there is room in the world for people donating to causes they care about. If nothing else, this is how new causes rise to prominence, to be recognized by the official channels.

zozbot2347• 7 months ago

There's no such thing as "the state" except as a societal arrangement. When you argue that "the state" should decide on who gets what, what you're really saying is that this should be the decision of a few power-crazed career bureaucrats, with no accountability whatsoever or any "skin in the game". At least the plutocrat is paying for the aid out of pocket: he will care somewhat that the money is not outright misused. Why should a random government bureaucrat be trusted to make good decisions?

mikkupikku6• 7 months ago

Effectiveness is to EA what Democracy is to the DPRK. Just part of the name. Amazing how many people get bamboozled by such a simple word trick though.

igor478• 7 months ago

If you're implying that my engagement with EA is so shallow as to stop at the name -- you're incorrect. Sorry if I'm unfairly reading this as an ad hominem, but that's how it's coming off.

On the merits, I think you're also wrong. Even beyond the money channeled by the movement, I think the philosophical discourse around how best to help people, what your obligations are to other people, and how to measure effectiveness has been useful and important.

estearum6• 7 months ago

Do you consider yourself a contrarian?

metadope• 7 months ago

Amazing how many people get bamboozled by such a simple word trick though.

That's what makes me uneasy about (the little I know of) EA.

Altruism can and does stand alone as a simple human concept (or meme, expressed in English). 'Effective' has got nothing to do with it. On its own, altruism is binary. You either give a thought to the well-being of your fellow man, or you don't. You either concern yourself with the world, or stay as self-centered as you were when you were screaming for attention from the center of your crib.

Adding the word 'effective' is a dilution and distraction from the original bit, and transforms it into a kind of creeping featurism. It invites analysis paralysis. It exhibits premature optimization.

Start by expending a little bit of spiritual energy towards actually becoming altruistic, then we can maybe graduate to an advanced degree in pursuit of effectiveness.

Because a cynical (experienced) person might suspect that the stipulated quest for effectiveness is a semi-conscious avoidance, a delaying tactic meant to push away the pain of subsuming the Self in favor of (undeserving? incoherent? ineffective?) Other.

Harsh thought, yeah, but you'd be amazed what human beings will do to avoid actual spiritual growth.

It seems to me to be a worthy goal for a human, to be altruistic. Like becoming mindful or developing empathy or meditating on the meaning of life. The pain of being ineffective is the baptism of fire. As soon as you consider the needs of others, you realize how powerless you are, in the face of all that need out there. But still you stretch for the goal.

What if I told you that the best and most proven way to effectuate some altruistic goal was to get down on your knees and pray?

No?

Alright, then, how about I send you to Pema Chödrön[0] and invite you to become a bhodisatva, contemplating all beings and sending them love and well-wishes through simple meditative practice?

Believe it or not, both of those practices can be very effective, but their effect will be on you, as you leave the crib behind and expand and extend your ability to consider the well-being of others.

Don't worry about being effective. Just be altruistic. Anybody who invites you to be effective first is just diverting you away from your altruism.

[0] https://www.shambhala.com/pema-chodron/

rockooooo• 7 months ago

A lot of people question the "effective" part of effective altruism, and simply saying "we support more effective giving" is not convincing, especially when the most public figurehead of the movement is/was a convicted fraudster.

ajuc3• 7 months ago

My main problem with EA is that it's used as a pseudo-alternative to proper public services and redistribution under the pretense that if we let rich people do what they want to - they will be "more effective" at it than the evil inefficient government.

What actually happens is they cut random shit, pocket the billions they save on taxes, spend a few millions here and there to feel good about themselves, and leave the chaos for someone else to sort out.

See Elon's crusade against American institutions.

igor478• 7 months ago

I don't know of any public EAs who endorsed Elon's crusade against American institutions -- can you name some?

Re: pseudo-alternative to proper public service -- 80,000 hours is product of the EA movement, which aims to steer people to be effective with their career. It was transformative for me at the right moment, and helped me choice between going deeper into FAANG vs devoting my career to causes that matter (though, checking the website now, almost 10 years later, I do wish they were less AI-risk focused).

Re: redistribution -- I think this is an orthogonal concern to EA, and it's unfair to expect a movement focused on altruism and philosophy to also focus on redistribution. FWIW, I am in favor of both EA and redistribution, I don't believe there's any tension between these.

I think the crux of your criticism is, "some people who are bad or whom I don't like endorse EA, or perhaps use EA to justify thair baditude". I think this is a bad argument. For every position you hold, I could find a bad person who endorses it. For instance, you seem to be in favor of redistribution. You know who else was in favor of redistribution? Stalin! And he killed millions of people. This way of thinking is good for one thing and one thing only -- shutting down thought.

insane_dreamer3• 7 months ago

it's because you're confusing "effective altruism" as a concept, with "effective altruism" as a movement

EA today is about as "altruistic" as the CCP is "communist"

belter• 7 months ago

Silicon Valley was never liberal. It was always pro libertarian, wrapped in some kind of social progress branding. What changed is that the mask slipped...

The same people, who preached openness and democracy, now pivot overnight to nationalism and strong state fantasies when regulation or taxes appear, like for example Marc Andreessen recent disgusting ideological flip-flops.

Calling this an intelligentsia is too kind, when its more wealthy tech bros with PhDs rediscovering pre 1910s reactionary ideas and mistaking contrarianism for depth. When Peter Thiel bankrolls figures like Eric Weinstein, it is just money confusing confidence for intelligence.

The latest is [1] Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale openly calling for public hangings to show “masculine leadership”, what just proves how unserious this crowd is. They do enterprise software but want medieval justice systems. They are deeply dumb, but in a very well funded way... :-)

[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/palantir-j...

OGEnthusiast• 7 months ago

The same people, who preached openness and democracy, now pivot overnight to nationalism

Nationalism isn't necessarily incompatible with open democracies. People in a democracy can vote for nationalistic policies without there being any contradiction.

goatlover3• 7 months ago

Problem is they help get people elected who enable if not outright embrace these sorts of ideas.

andsoitis4• 7 months ago

nationalism

Nationalism isn’t inherently immoral. Nationalism is the belief that people with a shared history, culture, language, or identity, ought to have political self-determination and a special loyalty to their own nation.

Where nationalism can go wrong is when it becomes exclusionary (eg defines nation as ethnic, racial, or religious), when it claims moral superiority, suppresses internal dissent, escalates into zero-sum thinking (success defined in terms of other nations losing).

archagon2• 7 months ago

In my experience, even the benign kind of nationalism inevitably metastasizes.

insane_dreamer3• 7 months ago

it's not inherently immoral but it's inherently dangerous because it can be so easily weaponized

almost all wars are fueled by nationalism

nis0s7• 7 months ago

Here’s an idea. What if instead of left/right wing, you’d sort ideas into useful and useless buckets, given that the context of these labels will change depending on your use case. X is useful for Y, but useless for Z. Ideally, you are tooling around with pro-social ideas for your governance or societal organization frameworks, which is a necessity if you’re optimizing for freedom, morality or ethics.

Sadly, in lieu of understanding larger societal contexts, our roles in them, and reasoning about uncertainty using grounded frameworks or rationale, most people have a tendency towards tribalism, and this is evident for proponents of both left- and right-wing ideologies. What we’re up against is already codified as the seven deadly sins, and despite the centuries of human societal and technological progress, these basic assumptions about anti-social human behavior still hold true.

The problem is when folks lock themselves into positions which they unfortunately convince themselves are beyond reproach. I like the Hegelian approach to ethics and freedom in society, but of course anyone may convince themselves that he’s speaking from their perspective, which I think is great. It shows how similar we all are.

zozbot2347• 7 months ago

What if instead of left/right wing, you’d sort ideas into a useful and useless buckets

But that's just boring, petty bourgeois centrism.

MPSimmons• 7 months ago

Yeah, this is definitely an n-dimensional modeling space. Left/Right wing are only one axis, and as far as I can tell, not even the most definitive in terms of determining if I agree with someone's perspective. I think that would be the authoritarian / anti-authoritarian. Lots of left wing people are still authoritarians, but between those two, you can get a _decent_ feeling of where someone is with regard to the national politics.

jjj1234• 7 months ago

Not sure about usefulness as the metric. How do you account for populations that will be harmed by a policy? “Not useful” doesn’t really capture it.

I usually think of policies as “who gets what, who loses what”, and form my opinion around those outcomes.

nis0s7• 7 months ago

I don’t think we need zero-sum framing for a lot of the things we talk about, and the fact that we do is the result of politics, not the policies per se.

analog31• 7 months ago

Are racism, misogyny, and superstition useful or useless? Now one could argue that those things are not right or left wing. There is no epistemology for what any given ideology -- political or religious -- consists of. An apologist can simply deny that "negative" things are part of their ideology.

nis0s7• 7 months ago

Are racism, misogyny, and superstition useful or useless?

Someone can just call you racist, misogynist, or whatever. Those labels don’t mean anything anymore because they’re used as weapons to shut down anyone who is ideologically opposed to you. Are some people racist or misogynistic, yes. But when you use these labels carelessly for anyone who says something you don’t like, you pave the way for actual racists and misogynists because they can call you unreasonable, inaccurate or unreliable.

And what is an apologist, exactly? If you’re unable to come up with a different way to look at something, that doesn’t make someone else who looks at the same thing in a different way an apologist. These are just political smears of the incurious or browbeaters.

Just because the leftists happen to align themselves with pro-social values that I prefer, like anti-racism or anti-misogyny, doesn’t mean they’re right about everything.

ndsipa_pomu• 7 months ago

Are racism, misogyny, and superstition useful or useless?

Obviously, they're useless and counter-productive.

There's no rational reason to think that there is a significant difference between people with different skin/eye/hair colour or between genders, but it's obviously a simplistic tribal belief. What we end up getting is a huge amount of wasted talent because of tribal politics - imagine how many Einstein-like intellects have died in poverty with no access to education.

It seems to me that people use racism and misogyny to help them stockpile wealth which is a big detriment to society - rather than working together, we have people working against other people.

Even the idea of "races" is itself flawed and has no meaningful basis apart from "they look different".

pcrh2• 7 months ago

This reflects an interesting development in Bay Area politics, which has global impact through tech companies.

A few decades ago, tech, science and liberalism were bedfellows in the Bay Area. Apple was famous for its anti-authoritarian "1984" ad, directed by Ridley Scott. Google proclaimed "Don't be evil".

I'm not sure quite what to make of the current trend of the dominant "technocrats", and their employees, from being liberal to supporting division within society.

But it does not seem conducive to a perpetuation of what made the Bay Area such a productive environment, from scientific, cultural and business perspectives.

andsoitis4• 7 months ago

Apple was famous for its anti-authoritarian "1984" ad

Perhaps, but Apple’s corporate culture is (and has always been?) pretty command-and-control.

A few decades ago, tech, science and liberalism were bedfellows in the Bay Area.

Digital Technology is a powerful tool to create uniformity (scale), force authority (control, predictability, sentiment shaping). Of course it can be used to fight against these, but digital tech leans very much in the direction of centralization and control if you ask me.

zozbot2347• 7 months ago

The "1984" ad is from... well duh, 1984. Apple was a small startup in a niche industry back then - fighting against centralization and control by building "a bicycle for the mind" that would push useful computation to the "edge" where it can be controlled by the user.

pcrh2• 7 months ago

In the 1990's to 2010's digital tech was perceived as liberating the masses from government and "business" control of information.

It's quite contrary to the present information environment.

ThrowawayR2• 7 months ago

"A few decades ago, tech, science and liberalism were bedfellows in the Bay Area."

A few decades ago was before the meteoric internet and mobile web boom and the deluge of non-hackers with CS degrees and MBA types with dollar signs in their eyes that flooded into the tech industry. The hacker ethos turned from "information wants to be free" into "f--- you, pay me" in only a few short years simply because the old guard was diluted away to nothingness by so many newcomers.

The New Right-Wing Tech Intelligentsia

Related Stories