Hi Justin! Valuable member of Vim’s userbase, reporting in. Would you undelete my comment on this issue, please? Don’t worry; previously, on Lobsters and previously, on Awful, we were sure to preserve the contents of your playlists in case you forgot what videos were your favorites.
That’s interesting. I’ve enjoyed watching videos in the past that featured Scott Adams, Peter Thiel and Eric Weinstein. Could you elaborate on what sort of person you think that makes me? My intuition tells me it’s some sort of “bad person”, but if you could give precise details rather than leave it as an insinuation I’d appreciate it. Thanks.
Sure! The intersection of Adams, Thiel, and Weinstein is mostly just misinformed; none of the three of them really know what they’re talking about, whether it’s Adams on the hypnotic powers of Mr. Trump, Thiel on the coming of the Antichrist, or Weinstein on how mainstream physics is wrong. Indeed, there is a sort of irony to their wrongness in that their followers are reading upside-down. For Adams, this is the failure of readers to understand that his self-insert in Dilbert is neither the title character nor the garbageman, but the pointy-haired boss; for Thiel, this is the failure of listeners to understand that he really does hold all of his ridiculous religious beliefs; and for Weinstein, this is the failure of listeners to realize that his physics babble is crankery disconnected from empirical reality.
In short, I’d say that you have fairly bad taste and, worse, an inability to notice how bad your taste is. I might suggest that you enjoy listening to Great Men, particularly a certain sort of incompetent leader who only succeeds because their followers aren’t interested in analytic or critical thinking.
The intersection of Adams, Thiel, and Weinstein is mostly just misinformed; none of the three of them really know what they’re talking about
Agree with you about Weinstein. I haven’t got much out of watching anything featuring him, although I initially found his ideas interesting. Thiel has some bizarre ideas, and also many interesting ideas about tech investing. Adams is the one I disagree with you most on: he actually stuck his neck out a couple of times, took severe heat for it, and was ultimately proved right, firstly to say that he thought Trump would win in 2016 and secondly to say he wasn’t the second coming of Hitler like he was made out to be. He also has some very bizarre and unsavory ideas.
I might suggest that you enjoy listening to Great Men, particularly a certain sort of incompetent leader who only succeeds because their followers aren’t interested in analytic or critical thinking.
You “might suggest” it? What does that mean? Please either state something plainly or not at all, don’t insinuate. Do you think I’m not interested in analytical or critical thinking, or don’t you?
But anyhow, there seems to be a gulf between what you’re saying here and what you said previously. You said
Justin M. Keyes is a cryptofascist. Previously, on Awful, we dumped his Youtube playlists; he favorited Scott Adams, Mel Gibson, Peter Thiel, Eric Weinstein, Curtis Yarvin, and more
So, do you think I’m a cryptofascist, or is it only the addition of Mel Gibson and Curtis Yarvin to Justin’s playlist that earns Justin that assessment from you?
Great questions! As Adam West once said, “I think it’s great that we live in a forum where you can ask questions.”
Yes, I might suggest it, because I thought that we were using the subjunctive mood and speaking hypothetically. I didn’t realize that you were actually a fan of Adams! I would point out that Adams was not a business genius; famously, the Dilberito was a disaster. Predicting that Mr. Trump would win was not impressive, especially when Mr. Trump immediately set up concentration camps along the USA’s southern border, contradicting the idea that Mr. Trump is not an ethnonationalist. So, to the extent that you actually believe Adams, yeah, you do have bad taste. Fortunately, just like how we don’t have to eat Dilberitos, we don’t have to watch old clips of Adams, and I believe that you can make a full recovery with effort.
I don’t think that you’re a cryptofascist. Indeed, Curtis Yarvin is the most important signifier, as Yarvin literally wants to destroy the USA’s governments and replace them with monarchies; anybody endorsing Yarvin is anti-democratic at a minimum and usually agrees that some sort of ethnonationalism is required to unify the newly-subjugated populace under their new kings. Justin’s got six Yarvin videos favorited, including videos with titles like “How to reboot the US Government” and “Welcome to the Dark Enlightenment”; indeed, Yarvin appears to be Justin’s favorite of the various problematic folks on his playlists.
Thanks! Now I’m curious what about them makes you say they’re great.
I might suggest it, because I thought that we were using the subjunctive mood and speaking hypothetically.
Oh right, no, when I said “I’ve enjoyed watching videos in the past that featured Scott Adams, Peter Thiel and Eric Weinstein” that’s just what I meant. I wasn’t trying to be hypothetical or to invoke a subjunctive mood.
I didn’t realize that you were actually a fan of Adams!
I’m not sure I’d describe myself as a “fan” Adams, but I’ve enjoyed a lot of his stuff. I found his books “Reframe Your Brain” and “How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big” particularly interesting.
I would point out that Adams was not a business genius; famously, the Dilberito was a disaster.
His restaurant was also a disaster. Yet he was wildly successful in the business of being a cartoonist (until a racist outburst got most of his subscriptions cancelled).
Predicting that Mr. Trump would win was not impressive
Regardless of how much you dislike the policies Trump put into practice, there was a lot of speculation about other actions he might carry out which he didn’t (such as jailing Clinton). Adams helped me see a new way of interpreting Trump’s words (as far as I know he’s the president whose words are furthest away from objective reality) and I’m grateful to Adams for that.
we don’t have to watch old clips of Adams, and I believe that you can make a full recovery with effort
Thanks for your interest in my wellbeing. I’m actually pretty confident in my ability to take what’s beneficial to me from what Adams said and reject what is harmful. I’m not sure if everyone has or could cultivate that ability, but it’s useful.
Here I have to disagree. He predicted in August 2015, over a year before the election and when a bookmaker was offering 7% odds, that Trump would win. I think it was an insightful prediction.
No, that’s a very common scam. You predict something that looks possible but has long odds. If the thing happens, you look smart because you were right when everyone else was wrong. If you’re wrong, no one remembers because it was an oddball prediction and you downplay it as a hypothetical. Do this a dozen times and you get a reputation as an infallible prophet.
You’re describing something akin to the 2^n scam. However, what I think was impressive was not merely that he predicted it (7% odds are not that long, after all) but insight he had into the reasons for the predicted win, a lot of it related to Trump’s “sales techniques”, which he has continued to employ to the present day, not only in his domestic policy making but his foreign relations too, for example his manner of dealing with Greenland. This was something that seemed to be completely invisible to traditional political commentators.
EDIT: And to be clear, I’m not trying to prove to anyone that Adams made a reliable inference, nor to suggest that other people should pay any attention to what he said. I’m just trying to make the point I found some of what he said interesting, some of it informative and some of it entertaining (not disjoint subsets!) and I don’t think it should be beyond the pale to add videos featuring Scott Adams to a YouTube playlist.
Hi Justin! Valuable member of Vim’s userbase, reporting in. Would you undelete my comment on this issue, please? Don’t worry; previously, on Lobsters and previously, on Awful, we were sure to preserve the contents of your playlists in case you forgot what videos were your favorites.
score 0 · canonical
That’s interesting. I’ve enjoyed watching videos in the past that featured Scott Adams, Peter Thiel and Eric Weinstein. Could you elaborate on what sort of person you think that makes me? My intuition tells me it’s some sort of “bad person”, but if you could give precise details rather than leave it as an insinuation I’d appreciate it. Thanks.
score 1 · canonical
Sure! The intersection of Adams, Thiel, and Weinstein is mostly just misinformed; none of the three of them really know what they’re talking about, whether it’s Adams on the hypnotic powers of Mr. Trump, Thiel on the coming of the Antichrist, or Weinstein on how mainstream physics is wrong. Indeed, there is a sort of irony to their wrongness in that their followers are reading upside-down. For Adams, this is the failure of readers to understand that his self-insert in Dilbert is neither the title character nor the garbageman, but the pointy-haired boss; for Thiel, this is the failure of listeners to understand that he really does hold all of his ridiculous religious beliefs; and for Weinstein, this is the failure of listeners to realize that his physics babble is crankery disconnected from empirical reality.
In short, I’d say that you have fairly bad taste and, worse, an inability to notice how bad your taste is. I might suggest that you enjoy listening to Great Men, particularly a certain sort of incompetent leader who only succeeds because their followers aren’t interested in analytic or critical thinking.
score 3 · canonical
Agree with you about Weinstein. I haven’t got much out of watching anything featuring him, although I initially found his ideas interesting. Thiel has some bizarre ideas, and also many interesting ideas about tech investing. Adams is the one I disagree with you most on: he actually stuck his neck out a couple of times, took severe heat for it, and was ultimately proved right, firstly to say that he thought Trump would win in 2016 and secondly to say he wasn’t the second coming of Hitler like he was made out to be. He also has some very bizarre and unsavory ideas.
You “might suggest” it? What does that mean? Please either state something plainly or not at all, don’t insinuate. Do you think I’m not interested in analytical or critical thinking, or don’t you?
But anyhow, there seems to be a gulf between what you’re saying here and what you said previously. You said
So, do you think I’m a cryptofascist, or is it only the addition of Mel Gibson and Curtis Yarvin to Justin’s playlist that earns Justin that assessment from you?
score 1 · canonical
Great questions! As Adam West once said, “I think it’s great that we live in a forum where you can ask questions.”
Yes, I might suggest it, because I thought that we were using the subjunctive mood and speaking hypothetically. I didn’t realize that you were actually a fan of Adams! I would point out that Adams was not a business genius; famously, the Dilberito was a disaster. Predicting that Mr. Trump would win was not impressive, especially when Mr. Trump immediately set up concentration camps along the USA’s southern border, contradicting the idea that Mr. Trump is not an ethnonationalist. So, to the extent that you actually believe Adams, yeah, you do have bad taste. Fortunately, just like how we don’t have to eat Dilberitos, we don’t have to watch old clips of Adams, and I believe that you can make a full recovery with effort.
I don’t think that you’re a cryptofascist. Indeed, Curtis Yarvin is the most important signifier, as Yarvin literally wants to destroy the USA’s governments and replace them with monarchies; anybody endorsing Yarvin is anti-democratic at a minimum and usually agrees that some sort of ethnonationalism is required to unify the newly-subjugated populace under their new kings. Justin’s got six Yarvin videos favorited, including videos with titles like “How to reboot the US Government” and “Welcome to the Dark Enlightenment”; indeed, Yarvin appears to be Justin’s favorite of the various problematic folks on his playlists.
score 1 · canonical
Thanks! Now I’m curious what about them makes you say they’re great.
Oh right, no, when I said “I’ve enjoyed watching videos in the past that featured Scott Adams, Peter Thiel and Eric Weinstein” that’s just what I meant. I wasn’t trying to be hypothetical or to invoke a subjunctive mood.
I’m not sure I’d describe myself as a “fan” Adams, but I’ve enjoyed a lot of his stuff. I found his books “Reframe Your Brain” and “How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big” particularly interesting.
His restaurant was also a disaster. Yet he was wildly successful in the business of being a cartoonist (until a racist outburst got most of his subscriptions cancelled).
Here I have to disagree. He predicted in August 2015, over a year before the election and when a bookmaker was offering 7% odds, that Trump would win. I think it was an insightful prediction.
Regardless of how much you dislike the policies Trump put into practice, there was a lot of speculation about other actions he might carry out which he didn’t (such as jailing Clinton). Adams helped me see a new way of interpreting Trump’s words (as far as I know he’s the president whose words are furthest away from objective reality) and I’m grateful to Adams for that.
Thanks for your interest in my wellbeing. I’m actually pretty confident in my ability to take what’s beneficial to me from what Adams said and reject what is harmful. I’m not sure if everyone has or could cultivate that ability, but it’s useful.
Thanks for clarifying.
score 1 · canonical
No, that’s a very common scam. You predict something that looks possible but has long odds. If the thing happens, you look smart because you were right when everyone else was wrong. If you’re wrong, no one remembers because it was an oddball prediction and you downplay it as a hypothetical. Do this a dozen times and you get a reputation as an infallible prophet.
score 1 · canonical
You’re describing something akin to the 2^n scam. However, what I think was impressive was not merely that he predicted it (7% odds are not that long, after all) but insight he had into the reasons for the predicted win, a lot of it related to Trump’s “sales techniques”, which he has continued to employ to the present day, not only in his domestic policy making but his foreign relations too, for example his manner of dealing with Greenland. This was something that seemed to be completely invisible to traditional political commentators.
EDIT: And to be clear, I’m not trying to prove to anyone that Adams made a reliable inference, nor to suggest that other people should pay any attention to what he said. I’m just trying to make the point I found some of what he said interesting, some of it informative and some of it entertaining (not disjoint subsets!) and I don’t think it should be beyond the pale to add videos featuring Scott Adams to a YouTube playlist.
score 4 · canonical