I'm not talking (nor care) about whether some particular person (Roko Basilisk'd creator or whoever) is right-wing or not. I'm commenting on the argument in your comment, about
"Traditional" being a traditional (heh) dogwhistle for the alt-right".
He could be to the right of Hitler, and the argument could still be wrong.
(I guess now you can write "I figured as much", and dismiss my comment, as if the particular and not the principle is what's important).
Additionally I feel it worthwhile to note that my original comment was intended to be examples of pseudo-rationalism
i.e:
* Yudkowsky using a fundamentally flawed argument to state and defend the idea that pure utilitarianist mathematics in some circumstances excuses and justifies lifelong imprisonment and torture (And then proceeded to use that as an example of our morality itself being flawed by human perception(!))
(Citations for this can be found on the accompanying rational wiki page, which is kind enough to both give commentary, and also link to the web archive page just in case it's lost)
* Roko (of Roko's Baselisk) recently "rationally" advocating for conservative "traditionalist" futurism, and in the process arguing that the capability that technology gives us to remove human rights consensually, would be a positive thing, among other extremely flawed claims.
(Citations for this can be found by doing a search of his twitter, it's only about three days old at this point)
And that (the part I didn't actually type out, because I assumed it was common knowledge, unfortunately) that these arguments and mindsets are fundamentally products of a pseudo-rationalist movement, that is typically referred to as the Neo-reactionary Movement, or more commonly (and by it's proponents as well -- see [0]) the Dark Enlightenment.
Rational Wiki has a very long, very expansive, and very detailed article on that movement in particular -- see [1]. That article directly links it to Yudkowsky, Scott Alexander, and Less Wrong as a whole (with sufficient citations), as they were hugely formative in creating the pseudo-rationalism inherent in that movement.
Can you go ahead and reread the comment of mine that you are arguing against? I think you're generalizing an argument that wasn't intended to be so. Here it is for ease:
> Or the creator of Roko's Baselisk openly stating recently on twitter that he wants "Traditional Futurism" ("Traditional" being a traditional (heh) dogwhistle for the alt-right [rational wiki article to dog whistles])
My post was talking about a very specific group of people (The Less Wrong community, and the Neo-Reactionary movement -- although in recent years Rationalist organizations and magazines like New Humanist have distanced themselves and placed themselves in opposition to those communities), and in the case of that specific quote I think it is clear that I was talking about the meaning of "Traditional" in the context of those tweets.
I don't think it's a valid or accurate argument to generalize my call-out of the word "traditional", within that to suddenly be about every single usage, ever, of the word "traditional" -- and in the process completely ignore the associations and context of that word.
Perhaps if I had known in advance that it would be mislead, I would have written:
> "Traditional" in this case being a common dogwhistle used in neo-reactionary and pseudo-rationalist circles.
In addition, the point of dog whistles (if you read the Rational Wiki article) is that it is a signal that people outside of the culture will easily dismiss, or think benign. There is a reason that the Traditional Values Coalition[0] is called that, or the Traditional Britain Group[1] is named so. And likewise there is a reason that a major money fund in the anti-abortion movement is called "Focus on the Family"[2].
The point of using them is that they are brushed off, pushed aside, or excused in exactly the same way you are doing, by well-meaning folks who are not present in those cultures.
"Traditional" being a traditional (heh) dogwhistle for the alt-right".
He could be to the right of Hitler, and the argument could still be wrong.
(I guess now you can write "I figured as much", and dismiss my comment, as if the particular and not the principle is what's important).