Talk:Robin Hanson

What the fuck do I do ?
Do I delete this useless page ? Or do I wait for someone to edit it ? I'm not good at being a sysop. Diacelium (talk) 21:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If anyone is wondering, before this article was written, apparently another version existed which only said something like 'There should really be something here.' This refers to that. Crossroads (talk) 19:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Silly science ramblings
Hanson frequently spins off into bizarroland whenever he tries to talk about biology and astronomy. He keeps insisting that the science for panspermia is overwhwleming, and that it is only not accepted because 'that belief is low status'. He generally cites fake predatory journals most known for posting webpages covered in the faces of people who point out their true nature photoshopped onto the bodies of morbidly obese women. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 130.207.88.171 / talk

They live on in all of us...
"Getting sex, in comparison,... is far more dependent on one's personal character and choices than is income"

I find this interesting as a (selective) use of the just-world hypothesis.

"cuckoldry" He was basically demanding justice for men being duped into working their arses off for years raising a bastard. But this is "rationalwiki", the hivemind of faux-moralizing anti-intellectual misinformation to use as a social bludgeon to harm the tall poppies. So what do I bother.
 * Lol, what a fucking loser. Twodots (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * -- Goatspeed. 02:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Libertarian
I would add a little paragraph that mentions explicitly that Hanson is "libertarian-leaning" and involved in the GMU ancap/libertarian subculture. You can kind of see it from the next but you kind of have to divine it as well. Additionally, maybe add a little more context on how his blog Overcoming bias is the progenitor of LessWrong, SSC and still loved and blogrolled by that whole debacle.

This would also give more context on the incel remarks. He resists ideas of "redistribution" until it's an incel demanding it.

An MRA speaks
"Getting sex, in comparison, is not very important, and, notably, is far more dependent on one's personal character and choices than is income."

Tell us again about how domestic violence is this massive social problem.


 * Are you trying to suggest that women not having sex enough with men are at fault for domestic violence? That's kind of fucked up. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 17:21, 12 November 2022 (UTC)


 * No. The idea is that if, as the page implies, getting sex is dependent on "one's personal character," isn't it odd that all these abusive men are able to get it? Domestic violence, after all, requires a domestic partner to abuse, and I would say abusing one's domestic partner is a sign of bad character. It's almost as if one's personal character has little correlation with sexual success.