Jump to content

Talk:Curtis Yarvin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regarding Curtis Yarvin Quote about White Nationalism

[edit]

Seeking opinions as to inclusion of the full quote of Yarvin's statement, cited to this primary source? The current version includes a partial quote, cited to two secondary sources (Atlantic article, a book on online extremists). Proposed additional content in bold:

"It should be obvious that, although I am not a white nationalist, I am not exactly allergic to the stuff (as should be the case with any intellectual—anyone who takes this as an endorsement of white nationalism is an idiot)." sbelknap (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Wow... I'm torn on this one. If I hadn't looked at the rest of the article, I almost might have been inclined to think he might not actually agree with white nationalism point for point on every issue by reading this quote alone. That said... it is the larger quote. I feel its a strongly disingenuous extension of the quote, but it's a part of the quote he wanted to put there. Is there a way to frame this quote more accurately? The dude is very obviously a white nationalist who recognizes that the larger population does not like white nationalists, and wants to promote white nationalism under cover of not being one. I can't decide whether to support or reject this RfC yet. I'm going to listen to more comments below first. Fieari (talk) 06:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do Not Include - After some consideration, I think I agree with XOR'easter below that the additional text is more redundant than clarifying, especially as I've already indicated I think his clarification is disingenuous in intent. The meaning of his quotation is clear from the part already used, and adding more doesn't really add more context or present his views more accurately. I am willing to be convinced otherwise... if you'd like to discuss my !vote with me more, please ping me. (We can have a thread here, but might want to make a separate discussion section) Fieari (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not intimately familiar with his writings, but isn't a large part of his whole schtick the fact that his proposed ideology is hugely self-conflicting and inconsistent? Giving the full quote and framing it accordingly could make that more clear maybe? Not willing to commit yet, waiting for editors with more experience with the subject to weigh in. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (summoned by the bot) I lean towards including the full version of the quote. Normally I would defer to secondary sources about what's relevant to include, but given that the parenthetical substantially changes the meaning of the quote and the subject is a living person, I think it's better to err on the side of caution by including the full quote as the writer intended it. By the way, if we do include the full quote, we should italicize the word endorsement like the source does. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Striking my comment. Based on User:Retroflexivity's important point below, I'm no longer sure whether it makes sense to include the full, edited version of the sentence or what is apparently the original version. I'm neutral for now. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not include, per my comment above. It's empty verbiage from a man who would never use one word when two would suffice. I do not see how the longer text fundamentally alters the reading of the text we have there now. He says "I am not a white nationalist", and then, in the longer portion, says he is not endorsing white nationalism. Yes, thank you, we got that already. If more needs to be said (and I don't think it does, but if), the quotation should be paraphrased for succinctness and clarity rather than included verbatim, because the extant secondary sources do not indicate that the exact words are deathless prose demanding precise preservation. XOR'easter (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • To elaborate somewhat: Yarvin wrote over 4,200 words in that blog post. How many of them should we paste in? Should we also include the part where he says "The two central organs of intellectual white nationalism in the US" provide "thoughtful, well-written commentary that will expand your mind"? Or the part where he follows "I am not a white nationalist" with "but I do read white-nationalist blogs, and I'm not afraid to link to them"? What guidance do we have for deeming any of it worth quoting, except what secondary sources have indicated? Letting down that standard leads to indiscriminate quote-gathering, not encyclopedic prose. XOR'easter (talk) 00:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • We have the same position here, but I'm alarmed by your argument. In editing Wikipedia at all, we obviously have to do some reading and make decisions about what is relevant and worthy of inclusion; WP:NOR doesn't apply to talk pages, and I see no reason why it should apply to any other aspect of the editing process: it need only apply to the content of the encyclopedia itself. Yarvin's post is obviously extremely long, but, if we feel that Yarvin's article is actually an important part of this page then it would be natural to highlight the nature of the post: for instance, we could
        Observe that the title of the post is "Why I am not a white nationalist"
        Quote the article as saying "the worst thing about white nationalism is that it is nationalism"
        Quote Yarvin as saying "Of course, I am not a white nationalist. I am not arguing that you should be a white nationalist. I am just suggesting that there are many bad reasons not to be a white nationalist. And there is one more. You could not be a white nationalist because you believed that the problems white nationalists worry about are not serious or important."
        If we want to clarify the posture Yarvin has taken on his public appearance and various public figures, we could
        Quote him as saying "[Steve Sailer] is perhaps best classified as a Sailerist, a label I'm not at all afraid to stick on my shirt."
        Observe that the parenthetical we're discussing was added after the secondary sources reported on Yarvin, likely as a form of response to them (see my top-level comment).
        I should stress that I don't think that any of this is particularly noteworthy; Yarvin has certainly written plenty of stuff, and I don't think that we need to report on all of it. That being said, if we wanted to give a thorough impression of the nature of the article I think we could do so in a balanced and descriptive manner, and there's no reason why this should devolve into a massive list of non sequitur quotes. Retroflexivity (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include full quote He wrote what he wrote. Go with that. sbelknap (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Engaged editors agree that omitting the parenthetical clause changes the meaning of the quote. (e.g., "his clarification is disingenuous in intent"; "Giving the full quote and framing it accordingly could make that more clear; "have his cake and eat it") The parenthetical is modifying the "not exactly allergic to it" part of the sentence; it is not a repetition of the first clause of the sentence. The secondary source cherry-picks part of the sentence, omitting the parenthetical. That is dishonest. It also would appear to be defamatory. sbelknap (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see my comment. The quote, as you supply it, is not from the original work. He didn't write "what he wrote"; the original article lacks the parenthetical, and the edit was only made after the secondary sources reported on it. Retroflexivity (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the research as to the history of the parenthetical. The revised text represents the author's intent, whatever his reasons. Wikipedia editors are not mind readers. Defer to the primary source, including whatever clarifications are made. Given that the parenthetical is the author's clarification of an (apparently misunderstood) sentence, the omission of the parenthetical constitutes libel. I favor inclusion of the full quote, including the parenthetical, perhaps with a note as to the sequencing, as you describe. sbelknap (talk) 01:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Include - What guidance do we have for deeming any of it worth quoting, except what secondary sources have indicated? per XOR'easter. In WP policy terms, the extra text isn't subject to quoting or analysis by independent WP:RS, therefore anything about it would be intrinsically WP:OR and WP:UNDUE - even if I agreed with the analysis of it, which I don't. In more everyday terms, the subject appears to be wanting to "have his cake and eat it" in a rather pathetic adolescent fashion, ie I'll say something offensive and stupid and then say that if anyone thinks I was being serious when I said the offensively stupid thing - they themselves must be stupid! This is the blogging equivalent to shouting obscenities through the letterbox and then running away. The jury is still out on whether his characterisation of himself as "an intellectual" is justified. Pincrete (talk) 12:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include, for the reasons given by others above. The idea that the rest of the quote adds nothing is laughably specious. Standardorder (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Include - The author relegated the second half of the quote to parentheses. It's parenthetical, an afterthought, a qualifier, Yarvin hedging his bets. We may note that Yarvin did not write, "anyone who endorses white nationalism is an idiot." Chisme (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Include The parenthetical was added to the article in the source linked at some date between Jan 19 2021 and Jan 30 2021, as can be seen on the web archive pages linked. Any inclusion of the parenthetical should mention this. The opener to this discussion section should have mentioned this as well. We should cite Yarvin's original article here, and I see no reason why his subsequent edits merit inclusion. Furthermore, any direct citation of the original source should use an archive link, not a direct link to extremist content that is being strategically modified to shield its author from criticism. Retroflexivity (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude. As Retroflexivity pointed out, Yarvin's original 2007 blog post did not include this qualifier, which was stealthily added in a 2021 edit, presumably in response to the negative press coverage by our cited secondary sources. It is entirely conceivable that Yarvin is so concerned about how he is portrayed in the media that he has attempted to influence this Wikipedia entry, but the pretense that he was misquoted by biased journalists can be safely dismissed. While I do not recommend engaging in such original research, if we were to open the floodgates in this instance then we might also consider indiscriminately quoting other passages from Yarvin's blog, for example Yarvin's observation that "entire major cities, have been ethnically cleansed by the departure of class-B [i.e., white] people fleeing class-A [i.e., black] violence."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between an Edge Lord and a White Supremacist. Yarvin is describing white flight using inflammatory language. He uses inflammatory language extensively. Perhaps we can agree that Yarvin's use of inflammatory language is dumb, counterproductive, offensive, etc. His later edits of ambiguous statements are relevant to the assertion that he is a white supremacist. This article is quoting an ambiguous statement that was cited by a secondary source and that was then later edited by Yarvin himself in the primary source to clarify his intent. Yarvin takes seriously, links to, and then condemns things that most people would simply dismiss as evil and ignorant. There is more technoautism than white supremacy here. Yarvin is a monarchist, not a Nazi. sbelknap (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No one has said anything about white supremacy; white nationalism and white supremacy may have extensive overlap, but the two concepts are distinct. The part in parentheses, though, being added 14 years after the article was written, apparently for the purpose of deflecting criticism of what was originally written, we CANNOT include without indicating in the article that it was added 14 years after the rest of the sentence was written and had been quoted in secondary sources. To include the parenthetical AND OMIT that information (implying that the parenthetical was written in 2007 with the rest of the sentence) WOULD BE dishonest! Blindly taking the position that he meant in 2007 what he said he meant in 2021 after being criticised is naivete.. after all, Hitler publicly said in 1933 that he didn't REALLY mean all the stuff he said in Mein Kampf about Jews and Russians (and no I am NOT comparing this dude to Hitler, just pointing out that by your logic that ought also to have been taken at face value). 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:C4F3:D108:465C:DF83 (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that it would be misleading to include the parenthetical without mention that the parenthetical was a later revision by Yarvin. However, it also is misleading to omit the parenthetical. Would the best course be to remove this quote from the article entirely? Or to include the quote with parenthetical with mention of Yarvin's (delayed) revision of the original? sbelknap (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Include; it doesn't seem to be included or emphasized in the secondary sources. Digging up additional material from primary sources to rebut / dispute the summary of secondary sources is WP:OR. --Aquillion (talk) 08:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include; It’s a quote mentioned in many secondary sources, they say it’s important. Extra bit was added post, but balking at completing a sentence is stretching OR conventions beyond breaking point. Conflatuman (talk) 09:55, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not include. We should choose what information to include based on what reliable, secondary sources highlight. They highlight the status quo quoted material. To include the content Yarvin added after the fact would be undue, especially as it would require additional text to clarify that it was added later. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Include Doesn't accurately represent Yarvin's views on race. He's rejected white nationalism in the past, and the quote deliberately removes context which makes it make sense.Smefs (talk) 05:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Irrespective of one's view on the omission, the article presents the quotation with a full stop after 'stuff.' However, this full stop after 'stuff' is not present in the original sentence. In addition to omitting part of the sentence, a punctuation mark has been introduced where the original sentence does not have one. In an academic publication, this would typically be indicated by adding '[...]' before the full stop. This would communicate to the reader that part of the sentence preceding the full stop has been omitted, signaling the original position of the full stop. The current version does not communicate the omission and has moved the punctuation mark to a different position, presenting it as a direct quotation. I wonder if there is a historical precedent for this? It seems quite unusual. --2A01:C23:9497:D800:4D87:1F96:5937:D7AD (talk) 16:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Content dispute

[edit]

I ask Grayfell to explain which part of my edits exactly was "[p]romotional whitewashing" this time. I have removed no negative claims whatsoever.

And I should stress: no, I am not interested in hearing about the punctuation error that I, in fact, made in one of the edits... I would like you to answer this specific question please. Biohistorian15 (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no patience for these kinds of games. False balance, cherry-picking, and context-free factoids are functionally promotional. Grayfell (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Vanity fair piece was surprisingly positive, actually.
It is massively unbalanced to remove all positive claims derived from a specific article while including a longform quote that has him praising mass murderers and the like. Biohistorian15 (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have now asked for a WP:3O since past experience demonstrates that we too have, so far, never agreed on a single matter in at least a dozen talk page discussions before this one. Biohistorian15 (talk) 08:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, my 3rd opinion is that Grayfell is correct in saying you were functionally promotional. Doug Weller talk 10:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a libertarian

[edit]

Why is Curtis Yarvin listed in the sidebar as a "Libertarian Intellectual"? He's openly authoritarian and is explicitly hostile to libertarianism. For one example, he says at about 00:20:50 in this talk:

"Perhaps some of you in the audience, I hate to utter the word, are Libertarians. And one of the things that I often pose to libertarians is that, as an engineer and a silicon valley person in another life, I have to say that the most effective engineering project of all time was a government project. It was the Manhattan project." Portuni (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Include mention of advocating for disbanding Academia/the Media?

[edit]

@Roggenwolf has reverted this mention of Moldbug advocating abolishing existing Academia and media, citing personal knowledge of the subject despite the below quote from a 2022 Vox article:
Shut down elite media and academic institutions: Now, recall that, according to Yarvin’s theories, true power is held by “the Cathedral,” so they have to go, too. The new monarch/dictator should order them dissolved. “You can’t continue to have a Harvard or a New York Times past the start of April,” he told Anton. After that, he says, people should be allowed to form new associations and institutions if they want, but the existing Cathedral power bases must be torn down. Superb Owl (talk) 06:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's a bit closer to a reasonable portrayal. I would fully agree to you inserting some version of it in the article.
If you write of "independent institutions", this unduly ignores the antecedent critique of the "cathedral" as the precise opposite. Roggenwolf (talk) 11:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Point well-taken on Yarvin disputing independence of those institutions - I added another version that more closley tracks the language in the source Superb Owl (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uncouth accusations

[edit]

To whomever is concerned,

This article makes Moldbug out to be a dangerous extremist. In reality he has had many different ideas about how to to best realize his ideas and eventually settled on the moderate "Become worthy". He even endorsed Kamala Harris. To selectively cover some of the thousands of deliberate, typically ironic provocations, is very biased. He is no extremist that thinks political violence helps anybody.

Other than that concern, the article should contain some passing mention that NRx considers its politics to be totally mainstream when viewed historically. Monarchy was the historical rule, democracy was always temporary. Similarly, the first few sentences should clearly state that Moldbug considers the background to his ideas to be a "clown world" that is WAY more absurd than anything else. Monárquico1975 (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reference for that "endorsed Kamala Harrris" claim? 92.40.217.186 (talk) 13:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Curtis_Yarvin&oldid=1264313521"