I mean, as a rationalist, I can assure you it's not nearly as sinister a group as you seem to make it out to be, believe it or not. Besides, the explanation is simpler than this article makes it out to be- most rationalists are from California, California is the origin of lots of cults.

▲

throwanem 7 days ago | parent [-]

> Besides, the explanation is simpler than this article makes it out to be- most rationalists are from California, California is the origin of lots of cults

This isn't the defense of rationalism you seem to imagine it to be.

I don't think the modal rationalist is sinister. I think he's ignorant, misguided, nearly wholly lacking in experience, deeply insecure about it, and overall just excessively resistant to the idea that it is really possible, on any matter of serious import, for his perspective radically to lack merit. Unfortunately, this latter condition proves very reliably also the mode.

▲

6177c40f 7 days ago | parent [-]

> his perspective radically to lack merit

What perspective would that be?

	▲	throwanem 7 days ago \| parent [-]
		None in particular, as of course you realize, being a fluent reader of this language. It was just a longwinded way of saying rationalists suck at noticing when they're wrong about something because they rarely really know much of anything in the first place. That's why you had to take that scrap of a phrase so entirely out of context, when you went looking for something to try to embarrass me with. Why? Which perspective of yours has you so twitchingly desperate to defend it?