22
Stubsack: weekly thread for sneers not worth an entire post, week ending 27th September 2026 (awful.systems)
submitted 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) by to c/techtakes@awful.systems
196 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Have a sneer percolating in your system but not enough time/energy to make a whole post about it? Go forth and be mid - welcome to the Stubsack, your first port of call for learning fresh Awful you’ll near-instantly regret.

Any awful.systems sub may be subsneered in this subthread, techtakes or no.

If your sneer seems higher quality than you thought, feel free to cut’n’paste it into its own post — there’s no quota for posting and the bar really isn’t that high.

The post Xitter web has spawned so many “esoteric” right wing freaks, but there’s no appropriate sneer-space for them. I’m talking redscare-ish, reality challenged “culture critics” who write about everything but understand nothing. I’m talking about reply-guys who make the same 6 tweets about the same 3 subjects. They’re inescapable at this point, yet I don’t see them mocked (as much as they should be)

Like, there was one dude a while back who insisted that women couldn’t be surgeons because they didn’t believe in the moon or in stars? I think each and every one of these guys is uniquely fucked up and if I can’t escape them, I would love to sneer at them.

(Credit and/or blame to David Gerard for starting this.)

(OT: 🎶 Do you remember...)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 9 points 2 days ago* (3 children)

There are some leaps in that post which do not seem persuasive to me. E.g., it sure seems pretty well established by now that Bay Area Rationalist society involves trapping people in situations where sexual consent is coerced, because refusal would mean abandoning one's career/entire social circle/shelter/hope of averting the apocalypse that one fears is coming. But the claim that the "flirt girls" at their weird little confab were actually sex workers? I dunno, that's a step that seems unsupported by anything leading up to it. Likewise for the claim about CNC events at Lighthaven itself—that feels too close to saying, "Well, they've got the venue, where else would they do it?"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 2 days ago

    I agree. He gets over his skis with too many speculative scenarios. On the other hand I think he's spot-on about the techniques rationalists use to filter for people who will tolerate abuse (e.g., the "cow question"). And he brings receipts when it comes to Brangus and his interactions with other prominent rationalists.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 child)

    I am not sure if Yud actually touches under-18s, or just has desires, but none of these people should be anywhere near minors or allowed in a position of responsibility (I suspect something happened between him and his disciple before 2014, and these people show no ability to learn from their own mistakes).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

    I wouldn't trust them to be responsible for minors, first because nothing about them suggests they have the baseline level of responsibility competence to handle the ordinary "hey, watch this!" disasters that are a natural part of being young.

    They are also incredibly shady and would be terrible role models, whether or not Lighthaven has a casting couch for influencers.

    In other words, there's a lot we don't know, and the actual situation is worse by an unknown amount beyond what we can establish, but what we do know is enough reason not to send your offspring to Camp TESCREAL.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent