the reason people have a problem with Land is that he is a militant campaigning racist. that's it in a nutshell.
True, certainly not enough of him to be speaking the way I am. Just "Dark Enlightenment" and a bunch of hyperstition (?) blog posts, plus interviews. Honestly, I don't think I'll go much further than that, unless someone convinces me there is more to him than I can currently appreciate.you havent even read him though!
Don't worry, I'll drop it. I had my spiel.ARGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
excerpt:I watched Gattaca last night and stumbled across this whilst talking to constant escape while it was paused:
It seems like he addresses much of this with a kind of humanity-in-hindsight ambivalence that surely must register to some as a red flag. And I'm not saying it doesn't harbor dangerous seeds - but it seems like what he's arguing doesn't lead to evil conclusions. From what I understand. If he's even arguing anything, other than "the current paradigm/value-framework will transform and render all current positions moot" - but I don't wanna put words in his mouth. Maybe that's not the point.On the sweetness-and-light side, racists and anti-racists can be expected to eventually bond in a defensive fraternity, when they recognize that traditionally-differentiated human populations are being torn asunder on an axis of variation that dwarfs all of their established concerns.