Presumably you're writing this for the crowd, most of which hasn't read every comment you've written on HN. I think you'll be unsurprised to learn that I have read them all.

So I've noticed that this isn't so much a consequence of some philosophical alignment of yours, which demands that any position or belief be defensible on the spot by the kind of first-order logic that an SAT solver could evaluate.

Rather: you seem to relish into coming as close as possible to the line of openly supporting racial and gender discrimination, and then retreating behind a smokescreen of "wrongthink" and "status hierarchy" when challenged.

You're better at this than Moldbug, but you seem to be playing the same game. And, like I said: my sense of it is that you've picked up this game pretty recently. Why?

I don't need the general reader to have read all my comments - my current comments were pretty clear about the fact that I was criticizing bad arguments and clarifying moral questions.

You pretty explicitly refused to challenge me which is why I assumed you were seeking status rather than intellectual discussion. That's still the belief I hold. If you want to challenge my reasoning or axioms, please do! That's far more interesting.

I also have no idea why you think I'm somehow advocating discrimination or even coming close. Let me reiterate: "I know how I justify my moral positions - my opposition to protectionism (either pro-white or ..." "I'm pretty explicitly stating that I consider racism to be extrinsically bad..."

I suppose the fact that I've engaged in similar philosophical nerdery for years was just great planning - I've been secretly white supremacist for years and was just laying a deep internet cover? Of course if I had that kind of foresight and such strong pro-white feelings, don't you think I would have arranged my life slightly differently?

Consider the possibility that Lutherans don't secretly worship Satan, in spite of having slightly different pro-Jesus arguments than Catholics.

My unwillingness to provide you with a first-principles predicate logic argument for why racial discrimination is wrong doesn't constitute an attempt to "seek status".

Thinly veiled accusations of racism while smugly acting as if you are somehow above a conversation you continue to participate in is an attempt to raise your status.

In any case, I also just realized why you've become so much more aggressively anti-intellectual. I doubt that your attempts to signal virtue to the enemies of meritocracy will work, but I do hope you guys survive their inevitable attacks when they figure out that stockfighter is basically a g-test. <- Notice the attempt to raise my own status, rather than engage in intellectual discourse?

I think you find this appeal to "status" more compelling than I do.