Previous: A Mysterious Web Site
CW: Mention of suicide
1. “Ziz preaches a doctrine of radical high-tech veganism that promotes punishing your ideological enemies.”
Ziz does indeed want more ppl to be vegan, & does indeed seem to consider veganism a criteria for whether she is “interested” in someone— at least, as a potential member of her cabal.
We may critique this on grounds that veganism isn’t super accessible to most ppl, & is therefore a flawed metric of whether ppl are “good”. What we take issue w/ is that this claim— re: Ziz’s veganism— is used to introduce a much more extreme & (to us) dubious idea: that she “promotes punishing… ideological enemies”. (Pls see pt. 24 for a breakdown of whether Ziz’s writing betrays such “preachings”.)
***
2. “Ziz's enemies are "vampires", the mass of unenlightened humanity "zombies.”
See pt. 24 for Ziz’s description of a “vampire”. While she does not admire vampires, & does not aspire to become one herself, Ziz does not describe vampires as her “enemies” so much as she describes them as abusers who carry w/in them extensive trauma.
Ziz does use the term “zombies”, but not in reference to “the mass of unenlightened humanity”. Ziz’s zombies are those not living their “real life”, w/ no plans for returning to that real life. Ziz gives this ex.: a trans person who sees no possibility for transitioning, & thus blocks the option of transness from their mind altogether. Ziz notes, "I expect it feels like being on Soma.”
Ironically, it is the dreaded Eliezer Yudkowsky— not Ziz— who has coined the term "zombie" in reference to “unenlightened”, "inadequately rational” ppl.
Non-Rationalists, ofc, are presumed to be zombies; but the threat of zombification- of being insufficiently thoughtful- never sleeps: it stalks even the Rationalists themselves.
For ex., many Rationalists believe that it is impossible for 2 rational agents to disagree: if there is disagreement, one must be an *irrational* agent- in other words, a zombie.
On the one hand, this is laughable. On the other hand, it's far more worrying than anything we’ve found on Ziz's blog.
This is, in ~cult-y parlance~, a "thought-terminating cliché": a strategy, used often in high-control groups, for shutting down dissent & debate.
***
3. “Ziz doesn't write about it publicly, but supports 'Nuremberg Trials' after the singularity to punish people for eating meat.”
As Ziz hasn’t written about this publicly, we can neither confirm nor deny.
***
4. “Zizians* believe normal ideas about morality are mostly obfuscated nonsense. They think real morality is simple and has already been put to paper by Jeremy Bentham with his utilitarian ideas.”
*We forgot to mention: much to Gwen’s distress, it is this site which popularized the term “zizian” in reference to Ziz’s friends.
😮💨 There is a lot to unpack here.
First, we wonder what— in the mind of this Rationalist— are “normal ideas about morality”. If these ideas include the denigration of trans ppl, sympathy for authoritarianism, vocal support for campaigns of extermination, and so forth… then we hope Ziz & her friends believe such notions are “nonsense”— we sure do!
If “normal morality” means, y’know, true ethical consideration… this is a misrepresentation of Ziz’s ideas, as far as we can tell from her writings.
While she does argue that certain systems— particularly within the Rationalist community— engage in the distortion of moral reasoning, she does not reject moral thought as “mostly obfuscated nonsense.” Rather, she critiques how oppressive structures manipulate ethical discourse to maintain control and suppress genuine moral clarity.
Re: the claim that she sees morality as “simple” and reducible to Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarianism...
This is not supported by Ziz’s blog. Nowhere is Bentham referenced, nor is there any indication that Ziz adheres to a strictly utilitarian framework. Instead, her critique focuses on the ways that people’s moral instincts are manipulated to prevent ethical engagement.
Far from dismissing morality as “simple,” her analysis suggests that ethical clarity requires resisting these distortions and engaging sincerely with right and wrong, rather than passively accepting the moral logic imposed by a given system.
At the risk of sounding repetitive, we must point out an irony: it is encore Eliezer— not Ziz— who admires & endorses utilitarian ideas.
While he does not identify as a *strict* utilitarian, his arguments frequently align with consequentialist* thinking, and he has engaged deeply with ideas from figures like Peter Singer, a prominent utilitarian philosopher.
*Consequentialism states that, if an action leads to the best possible outcome, it is “morally right”, regardless of whether it follows traditional moral rules. It is repeatedly criticized by Ziz on her blog.
***
5. “Ziz is a master manipulator; she is extremely skilled at selling people on nonsense ideas... that defy not just the "rules of rationality" but basic common sense.”
This critique— that Ziz sells “nonsense ideas” that defy “the rules of rationality” and “basic common sense”- misrepresents the nature of her arguments.
Ziz’s critiques of the Rationalist establishment are not arbitrary or irrational but rather focus on exposing systemic moral distortions. Her critiques are rooted in real, documented behaviors— for example, the way Rationalists have attempted to undermine her trans identity, through repeated attacks, over the course of years. This suggests that her ideas are not “nonsense”, but rather a response to real patterns of manipulation and control.
In such a system, where moral instincts have been warped to maintain an oppressive norm, "common sense" is not always a reliable guide— nor, btw, is there one universal definition for “common sense”, as this Rationalist seems to believe.
Ultimately, this accusation seems to rest on the assumption that Rationalist dogma is the baseline for truth— which we find highly questionable.
***
6. “In the pamphlet distributed at [the conference] is a passage threatening to punish "nongood" people”.
This is incorrect. Here is a link to the conference pamphlet.
***
7. “Zizians do not think it is ever valid to surrender.”
This criticism is an oversimplification of Ziz’s stance. Nowhere on her blog does she state that surrender is never valid in any context. Instead, she focuses her critique on specific systemic pressures that *demand* submission.
Her concern seems to be that, within Rationalist spaces, people are led to believe that they have no choice *but* to submit, or that resistance is futile. She critiques these dynamics not because she denies that surrender can *ever* be appropriate, but because she sees certain forms of surrender as the result of manufactured helplessness, rather than true agency.
In her writings, she expresses hope that she will be able to *resist* the Rationalists’ many coercions— this does not mean she categorically rejects surrender, but that she aspires to *survive* the Rationalists’ oppressive narratives & moral distortions.
This criticism misrepresents the complexity of her views by flattening her critique of *coercion* into a rigid, absolutist position.
***
😮💨 …The MOST damning allegations, however, have yet to come.
Next the site connects Ziz's "ideology” w/ the suicide of her friend Maia— whom we met in pt. 6.
It acknowledges that Maia had felt suicidal *prior* to meeting Ziz... but says these feelings were worsened by Ziz & Gwen’s “mental tech”. It further links Ziz to the suicide of a girl named Fluttershy, who used to live w/ Ziz & Gwen on their houseboat.
In response to these 2 tragedies, we will say only that— at a national level— trans ppl are ofc more likely to know ppl who die by suicide, given elevated suicide rates among trans ppl (which both Maia & Fluttershy were).
We will also say that— altho we have no statistics for the suicide rate among trans Rationalists— we sorrowfully presume that these rates would be even higher, given the atmosphere of deadly transphobia in which trans Rationalists are forced to live. RIP Maia, & RIP Fluttershy.
*****
Up next:
If you’d like to hear an *alternate*— perhaps- dare we hope- definitive story of this site’s origins: A New (Alleged) Villain Emerges
If you’d like to get on w/ the story: By No Means Ask Alice