Previous: Who's a Death Cult?
While we don’t delight in picking on ex-MIRI employee Jessica Taylor as an individual— after all, we don’t even know her— we’re left w/ v. little choice: she is one of the few Rationalists who has been eager to talk to the press abt Ziz & friends, whom she has called a “death cult”. This piqued our interest &, in a spirit of “pure intellectual inquiry”, we looked at her X account to see if we generally agree or disagree w/ her opinions.
Here is what we have to say abt 14 other opinions held by Jessica.
1.
"Wokeness has come to dominate many American institutions."
First, we’d encourage Jessica to unpack that vague category of “wokeness”— perhaps expanding it to “being anti-racist, anti-imperialist, feminist, healthily skeptical of oppressive power dynamics, & charitable towards the queer community” (BAAFHSOOPDACTTQC).
We would then disagree w/ Jessica that BAAFHSOOPDACTTQC has come to “dominate” anywhere near the majority of “American institutions”! This assumes a level of power & control that doesn’t fully align with reality.
While DEI initiatives & acts of performative allyship have become more visible in corporate & academic spaces, that doesn’t mean these institutions are genuinely committed to dismantling oppressive structures. Many of them remain fundamentally conservative in their interests— prioritizing profit, stability, & hierarchy over real systemic change.
We would say that institutions often co-opt liberatory rhetoric without truly changing their underlying power structures: they aren’t meaningfully immersed in “woke”, as Jessica claims— they’re just good at appearing that way when it serves their interests. Just because progressive ideas are talked about doesn’t mean they actually dictate policy, especially when reactionary forces have significant political & economic leverage. To say otherwise would be to conflate cultural visibility & systemic power.
FTR, Jessica made this post in August of 2024. At this time, if our memory serves us, wokeness— or rather, BAAFHSOOPDACTTQC— was not "dominating" institutions: it was under heavy political attack.
Conservative politicians & media were actively working to dismantle DEI programs, restrict discussions on race & gender in schools, & roll back LGBTQ+ protections. To say that BAAFHSOOPDACTTQC had "taken over" ignores the fact that it was (& is) a highly contested & embattled framework, rather than a ruling ideology. The Trump administration's attacks on DEI & on trans rights in 2025 are just the latest example of how power resists real systemic change.
***
2.
“It is... weird to say right wing opinions on a real face account.”
We don’t think it's “weird” at all! We see lots of ppl voicing what we may charitably call conservative or uncharitably call reactionary opinions— w/ no fear of blowback, &, in fact, receiving no blowback.
Society at large still often welcomes conservative/reactionary views— particularly in areas such as politics, media, & religion— where such voices really carry!
***
3.
“Emotional labor” is a woke term.
We would ask Jessica to get more specific & say it is a feminist term. Why not credit the feminist thinkers— Arlie Hochschild et al.— who shaped this concept?
***
4.
“Talking frequently about privilege is adaptive for people in the loop of managerial capitalism.”
Unlike Jessica, we think that genuine discussions of oppression in our society— esp. within our professional environments— are still largely avoided.
As we’ve said, companies & institutions often promote a veneer of inclusivity without confronting the deeper structures of inequality. In many cases, discussions about privilege— when they come too close to questioning fundamental power dynamics— still get shut down.
***
5.
“Social justice narratives about privilege are… not generally in good faith.”
Jessica, this makes us wonder: are you speaking in good faith? That is: are you open to evidence, & not deliberately misrepresenting or strawmanning the other side’s argument?
This claim seems to dismiss the real, lived experiences of marginalized ppl who are trying to advocate for systemic change. It's an oversimplification to categorize these narratives as merely "in bad faith", especially when they aim to shed light on power dynamics that are often hidden in plain sight.
***
6.
“Woke critique of capitalism is some combination of critique of managerial capitalism and sneering at… Libertarians… and at rednecks.”
Jessica, this also seems like a “bad faith” strawman representation of many critiques of capitalism. We’re sorry if you personally feel sneered at; we notice you say on X that you lean Libertarian. We have no intention of sneering at you nor at “rednecks”, who are, in fact, cherished allies in our ongoing class war.
Here, rather than say “woke”, we would perhaps rip off the veil & say “leftist”. Leftist critiques of capitalism often focuses on structural inequalities, the exploitation of marginalized groups, & the ways capitalism reinforces racial, gender, & class hierarchies. That is to say, they go far beyond critiquing simply “managerial capitalism”.
Sneering at certain groups is also generally not considered good praxis— though there are always exceptions! 🤭 The issue is that sneering at “rednecks” or at “Libertarians” in isolation would ignore deeper issues of wealth concentration, corporate power, & systemic oppression.
***
7. & 8.
“The literal interpretation of 'race is a social construct' is… false or trivial."
“The literal interpretation of 'anyone who identifies as a woman is a woman' is philosophically absurd."
Let’s take these one by one.
“Race is a social construct"
Jessica treats this statement as either trivial or false, implying that race must have a firm biological basis. But this phrase, as used by marginalized communities & by scholars, isn't meant to deny genetic diversity. Instead, it highlights that racial categories are historically contingent, shaped by social, political, & economic forces. The meaning isn’t just about classification— it’s about how race has been used to justify oppression & structure power.
“Anyone who identifies as a woman is a woman"
Jessica calls this statement "philosophically absurd", which unfortunately dismisses the lived realities of trans people.
She is perhaps hearing the claim as, "anyone who identifies as a woman is a cis woman"— which isn’t what this claim is saying. We have never heard anyone claim that cis & trans women are identical in every aspect. The actual claim instead seeks to broaden the rigid, old-school definition of "womanhood", in order to include trans women.
This is important in part bc, historically, definitions of "woman" have been used to exclude & marginalize many different groups— including Black women, working-class women, & now, ofc, trans women. The statement is about recognition, affirmation, & legitimacy— not about erasing differences, but about pushing back against restrictive, gatekeeping definitions of gender.
Far from being philosophically absurd, the claim that "anyone who identifies as a woman is a woman" is a position grounded in serious feminist & social philosophy— philosophy which challenges essentialist views of gender, & which argues compellingly for understanding gender as a social, performative, or self-identified category.
If Jessica is curious abt which philosophers support this claim, we might encourage her to start w/:
1. Judith Butler
- In Gender Trouble (1990), Butler argues that gender is performative, meaning it is something we do rather than something we inherently are.
- They challenge the idea that womanhood (or manhood) must be tied to biology, emphasizing that gender is constructed through social norms, behaviors, & recognition.
- According to Butler, if gender is a social practice rather than a biological essence, then identifying as a woman— engaging in the social & personal practices of womanhood— can make someone a woman.
2. Sally Haslanger
- In Resisting Reality (2012), Haslanger defines gender in terms of social roles & structures of oppression, rather than innate traits.
- She suggests that someone is a woman if they are systematically positioned in society in a way that aligns with the historical oppression of women.
- This perspective allows for trans women to be understood as women because they navigate society in ways shaped by their gender identification, even if they were not assigned female at birth.
3. Talia Mae Bettcher
- Bettcher critiques the idea that trans identities must conform to external, cis-defined categories.
- She argues that trans women’s claim to womanhood should be taken on their own terms, emphasizing first-person authority— that is, people are best positioned to define their own gender.
- This rejects the notion that there must be a single, objective definition of womanhood.
4. Ásta
- In Categories We Live By (2018), Ásta develops a conferralist theory, which suggests that gender identity is established through social recognition.
- If someone is socially recognized as a woman— whether by themselves or by others— then they *are* a woman in the relevant social & practical sense.
Jessica, what ultimately made us bristle is that you’ve framed both “Race is a social construct” & “Everyone who identifies as a woman is a woman” in a way that makes them seem logically weak or simplistic. You have not engaged with why they matter to marginalized groups, or fully considered how they function as socio-political claims. You have sidestepped their deeper significance— treating them as slogans to be deconstructed rather than expressions of identity, resistance, & belonging. A more charitable approach would have engaged w/ why people use these statements, & what work they do in social movements— rather than dismissing them as naïve or misleading.
***
9. & 10.
White privilege was accurate under Jim Crow.
Affirmative action represents “black privilege”.
We would argue that “white privilege” is still quite an accurate term today!
We also fear that Jessica’s use of the term “black privilege” wrt affirmative action is again a bad-faith representation of much more complex power dynamics.
Affirmative action is an attempt to level the playing field— not a form of “privilege” enjoyed by Black people. The historical & structural inequities it addresses make it crucial to the ongoing fight for racial justice.
***
11.
“Groups wokeness considers privileged (such as white men) are substantially dis-privileged by wokeness”.
Again, if by wokeness Jessica means “being anti-racist, anti-imperialist, feminist, healthily skeptical of oppressive power dynamics, & charitable towards the queer community”— this does not “take away privilege” from white men, but rather sets up boundaries so that other populations can survive & hopefully thrive.
***
12.
“I dislike wokeness in many ways… the main counterargument I can offer to anti-wokeness is that its analysis is ahistorical.”
When Jessica says “I dislike wokeness in many ways”, finally we think she is saying something that is in good faith: something that is straightforward & that represents her truth.
But then we find it bizarre that she follows this with, “the main counterargument I can offer to anti-wokeness is that its analysis is ahistorical.” In the context of Jessica’s post, she does not, unfortunately, mean “ahistorical” in the sense that it ignores long & gruesome histories of oppression. She means instead that the so-called “dis-privileging” of white men hasn’t come out of nowhere: that it is part of a long-term change in privilege & power dynamics.
Again, we would dispute whether privilege & power dynamics have meaningfully changed. We rather fear that “white men are currently dis-privileged” is a myth used to stoke support for reactionary movements.
The fact that this is the *only* critique Jessica can make of “anti-wokeness” is disappointing. This is not a critique which shows much solidarity w/ marginalized populations or w/ their struggle.
***
13.
White men are making up for their “dis-privilege” with “economic and intellectual merit”.
This one left us scratching our heads. Jessica seems to be saying that white men succeed despite being disadvantaged— that they naturally rise above, which feels like a way to downplay or deflect from the realities of how systemic power actually works.
We also happen to think that talking of (most) men’s “intellectual merit” is silly— but we can certainly talk abt the historical dominance which cis white men have enjoyed in intellectual spaces! Again, both this & their economic successes are, from our perspective, signs that they do indeed have continued systemic advantages.
***
14.
Jessica believes in the possibility of “intellectual, responsible anti-wokeness”, provided it locates “itself in” the proper “historical context”: at present, “anti-wokeness” has forgotten “the last 15 years or so”, which Jessica helpfully attempts to lay out in her post.
Again, by “proper historical context”, Jessica does not mean a context of oppression; she means a context in which power dynamics have (she claims) been meaningfully shifting over time.
We would argue: the issue w/ “anti-wokeness” isn’t its “forgetfulness”. The issue is that it’s a stance dedicated to maintaining oppressive traditions. The issue is that it seeks to maintain the status quo, rather than find solutions to real problems of inequality.
***
We’ll say it again: Jessica Taylor, we do not delight in picking on you specifically.
You are simply a prominent Rationalist who has spoken publicly on an issue which we at Strange New Vegan Death Cult Murders care deeply about.
In order to evaluate your claim that Ziz & friends (ZAF) are a death cult, we felt a good strategy would be to evaluate some of your other claims— to see if we generally agree w/ what you have to say. If we had agreed w/ most of the 14 claims listed above, then we may have been forced to reevaluate our harsh stance towards the Rationalists, & our soft & cuddly stance towards ZAF.
Instead what we have found, Jessica, is a pattern in your writing which we see broadly chez the Rationalists, & with which we take issue.
That is: a tendency to approach social & political issues with the pretense that you are analyzing them “objectively”— purely to “discover the truth”— while just happening to neglect, again & again, consideration of the material realities of power & oppression.
This leads to you- & to the Rationalists writ large (RWL)- repeatedly critiquing anti-oppressive movements, while showing little urgency in addressing systemic injustice. This is not intellectual neutrality— it is a failure to recognize how historical and social contexts shape what your group considers “reasonable”.
While positioning themselves as being above “ideology”, RWL frequently dismiss marginalized perspectives as emotional or exaggerated, rather than as lived realities with deep historical grounding.
Your arguments, Jessica, reflect this pattern.
You critique “wokeness” as though it were an unchecked institutional power, yet fail to acknowledge how reactionary forces continue to undermine racial, gender, and economic justice. You scrutinize critiques of capitalism without seriously engaging in their substance. & you dismiss key rights-based concepts as being “in bad faith” or as being “philosophically absurd” without grappling with the philosophical traditions which support them.
Our critique of you, Jessica, is not ultimately about your individual beliefs, but about a larger Rationalist tendency to mistake selective skepticism for intellectual rigor.
When you Rationalists ignore the structural dimensions of power in favor of so-called “abstract reasoning”, you risk becoming apologists for the status quo— you risk defending existing hierarchies under the guise of neutrality.
This is, in fact, what we see you doing in 2018, when you recommended that Ziz not go public w/ MIRI’s alleged cover-ups of sexual misconduct.
This is also, we can presume, what you are doing at present, by speaking to the press abt Ziz’s “death cult”, which positions the Rationalists, tacitly, as the sane & reasonable ones by comparison. For an alternate take on whether the Rationalist establishment is “sane & reasonable”, we politely invite you to read pts. 1-30 of Strange New Vegan Death Cult Murders.
Go in peace, Jessica Taylor! But please, for the sake of our blood pressure, can it w/ that “death cult” chitter-chatter.
*****
Next: Missing Persons