This is just a preaching-to-the-choir description of the fact that Siskind does not hold 100% to egalitarian leftism. Unless you're already a doctrinaire egalitarian leftist, I don't see why reading this would change your opinion of him by a millimeter
> Unless you're already a doctrinaire egalitarian leftist, I don't see why reading this would change your opinion of him by a millimeter
It seems possible that if someone wasn’t familiar with Scott’s position on race science, they could read about his position on race science and then have that influence their opinion of him.
Out of curiosity, are you lumping everybody into two groups? The way your sentence was worded it sounds like there are on one hand people that believe in race science, and on the other hand “doctrinaire egalitarian leftists”. If the only qualification required to be a “doctrinaire egalitarian leftist” is “not believing in race science”, then you’ve kind of just said “Unless [you don’t believe in race science], I don’t see why reading this would change your opinion of him by a millimeter”, which might actually kind of underscore some people’s issue with him.
Thank you for clarifying that you are using the term “doctrinaire egalitarian leftist” to refer to any individual that does not believe in race science, or more specifically any individual that doesn’t agree with Scott Siskind’s position on race science.
I’m personally not super familiar with that label and assumed because of the definitions of those words that it would have some sort of philosophical or ideological connotation — but since a person needn’t be doctrinaire, a philosophical egalitarian, or a leftist to not be a fan of Scott’s blog, when you say “doctrinaire egalitarian leftist” here you mean it like when a Juggalo says somebody isn’t “down with the clowns”
I’d pick another word for non-Codexers or Scott Thots (I’m guessing, I don’t know what label your fandom self-applies here), as someone could mistakenly think that you are trying to make some sort of point. (Which we know that you are not, since your original post was essentially just “Bringing up Scott’s positions on race science won’t change the opinions of the fans of Scott’s positions on race science” just phrased in a maximally-confusing and belabored way)
I've read only perhaps 1% of Siskind's work and don't have a particularly close familiarity with him or opinion on his work, and from that position I'm pointing out that the blog post is not particularly persuasive. It just states that Siskind does not hold to the same presuppositions as the author without making an argument for those presuppositions
> I've read only perhaps 1% of Siskind's work and don't have a particularly close familiarity with him
I see the point you’re trying to make here and I’m sorry I’m just not interested in becoming part of your fandom. I don’t really care how little you feel someone needs to read of Scott’s blog to find race science to be so compelling
Yeah, I guess it's true that people who (1) like eugenics and "human biodiversity" (i.e., race science), and (2) think neoreactionism is "edgy and cool" are not egalitarian or leftist.
