I think the bigger issue with Scotts post is that the “vitalist advocate” he is responding to appears to be an (imo quite vile) alt-right neoreactionary. Like, of course there are deviations between an altruist and a “former” white nationalist alt-right blogger who chose “walt bismarck” as their pseudonym.
And I get that he’s trying a “gotcha” here, to say that if vitalists truly believed in making people strong they’d be donating to malaria nets, but, his argument on that front sucks. Like, he characterises a “hyperspecific” form of vitalist to be “building as many tanks as possible”. Do we really think the alt-right shithead is going to agree with that characterisation? He’s just redefined vitalism as a different form of altruism.
I think the bigger issue with Scotts post is that the “vitalist advocate” he is responding to appears to be an (imo quite vile) alt-right neoreactionary. Like, of course there are deviations between an altruist and a “former” white nationalist alt-right blogger who chose “walt bismarck” as their pseudonym.
And I get that he’s trying a “gotcha” here, to say that if vitalists truly believed in making people strong they’d be donating to malaria nets, but, his argument on that front sucks. Like, he characterises a “hyperspecific” form of vitalist to be “building as many tanks as possible”. Do we really think the alt-right shithead is going to agree with that characterisation? He’s just redefined vitalism as a different form of altruism.