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.)
That was true once. Today Yarvin is massively influential. (I'm not explaining it, just reporting it.)
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.
No one thinks Yarvin is popular. They think (know) he’s influential among the very specific small group that you disclaim any knowledge of.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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
GiveWell and CharityNavigator still exist. Charities like GiveDirectly still exist. But, at least where I've seen it, conversation online about these things by people who'd consider themselves part of a community has shifted.
"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"
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"
People can and will continue to donate their time and money regardless of this particular movement.
Scrutiny implies scrutinizing.
It suggests careful observation. That’s not what FTA is engaged in.
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.
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.
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...
throwaway091025•1h ago