SneerClub

Here's that thread without the line numbers:

In a deeply offensive and morally bankrupt essay “Deep Zionism”, Scott Aaronson presents the killing of Palestinian children as a moral duty, effectively endorsing the murder of 18,000+ Palestinian children in response to the murder of 36 Jewish children on 10/7/2023.

scottaaronson.blog/?p=9082

Aaronson: “Zionism…is the proposition that…you have not merely a right but a moral obligation to pull the lever — and that you can do so with your middle finger raised high to the hateful mob.” (Deep Zionism, 2024).

Aaronson’s claim is blunt: if your enemy hides among civilians, you are morally obligated to kill them anyway. He calls it not only justified but righteous and says you can do it with defiance: “your middle finger raised high.”

Aaronson writes (faithfully paraphrased): “The responsibility for those children’s deaths rests with their father, not with you.” In this framework, Israel has no responsibility for Palestinian children killed by its bombs or bullets. Aaronson even dismisses the urgent moral question of saving lives (faithfully paraphrased): “The correct question isn’t which choice will lead to fewer children getting killed right this minute.” For Aaronson, Palestinian lives in the present moment do not count.

This is not an abstract puzzle. Palestinian children have been killed in their homes, in schools, in hospitals, and in the streets. They were not “placed on tracks” by parents. They were intentionally killed where they lived and played.

Aaronson preemptively shuts down dissent: “I’m not opening the comments on this post, because there’s nothing here to debate.” Not reasoning. Not philosophy. Dogma.

To understand this posture, you need to know Aaronson’s self-story. He has long written about being a bullied nerd, ignored by women, and obsessing over feminism in his youth. He describes raising a “middle finger” as the key to his survival. In Aaronson’s words: “… I raised a middle finger to the Andrea Dworkins and Arthur Chus and Amanda Marcottes of the world. I went Deep Zionist on them.” Here, “Deep Zionism” is not about Israel; it’s his life strategy. What begins as adolescent grievance becomes Aaronson’s moral method. First against classmates, then against feminists, now against Palestinians. The same defiance that once excused his bitterness now “justifies” child killing.

This isn’t philosophy, it is autobiography turned into lethal dogma. Aaronson's grievances are universalized into axioms. The bullied nerd becomes the philosopher-king of violent righteous middle fingers.

In 2014, during another Gaza “war”, Aaronson wrote blog comment #439: “You shoot back… knowing in advance that you’ll almost certainly hit one or two … [children]… my moral intuition is perfectly comfortable with saying yes, your killings were ‘accidental’.” In that same 2014 comment (#439), Aaronson added: “…the children’s father, not you, bears the primary responsibility… He’s their de facto murderer.” Exactly the same absolution logic as Deep Zionism. Aaronson even wrote (#440): “…my desire to see other people deterred… is so staggeringly enormous that it counterbalances even my grief at seeing innocent children killed.” Deterrence outweighs grief at killing.

From 2014 to 2024, Scott Aaronson’s line is straight: redefine foreseeable child deaths as “accidents,” outsource blame entirely to Palestinians, and frame killing of children as righteous.

But both law and ethics reject this. In criminal law, foreseeable deaths are not “accidents.” In just war theory, proportionality and discrimination forbid treating civilians as expendable. Aaronson erases those safeguards. His framework is clear: Palestinian children’s lives do not count. Their deaths are someone else’s fault, never the fault of those who kill them.

The result is not philosophy. It is a ritual of absolution: kill children, call it accidental, flip the finger, and declare yourself righteous.

When a public intellectual says minimizing child deaths “right this minute” is the wrong question, believe him. Scott Aaronson puts zero value on Palestinian children’s lives. Deep Zionism is his confession.

In that same 2014 discussion, Aaronson volunteered that he still admired Werner Heisenberg for his science, acknowledging Heisenberg’s moral compromise working under the Nazis. But Scott Aaronson is no Heisenberg. Heisenberg was a genius of quantum mechanics, his name forever tied to physics itself. Aaronson, whatever his early promise, is a relatively minor figure in computer science, and now, a moral failure.

If you want a Nazi scientist analogy, the closer match is Philipp Lenard: a Nobel laureate who slid into ideological extremism, railing against “Jewish physics.” A man of some early talent but remembered mainly for his complete moral collapse. Like Lenard, Aaronson fuses grievance with ideology. Lenard turned physics into nationalism. Aaronson turns personal resentment into Zionist dogma. Both weaponize intellectual authority to sanctify cruelty.

Lenard was once respectable, then became a mediocrity defined by extremism. Scott Aaronson now steps into the same fate: remembered not for quantum complexity but for giving moral cover to child killing, land theft, and forced displacement.

This is why "Deep Zionism" matters. It’s not just one essay. It’s the culmination of a decade-long pattern: absolution of foreseeable child killings, grievance elevated into dogma, and now, intellectual authority harnessed to justify atrocity.

Zionism, to define it in one sentence, is the proposition that, in the situation described, you have not merely a right but a moral obligation to keep digging—and that you can do so with your middle finger raised high to the hateful mob.

Hossenfelder seemed like a normal science blogger and critic of string theory until some recent videos, and most people don't update their blogroll every year. And Woit links her sensible (but defunct) blog, not her out-there videos.

A lot of people in this world have connections going back 15 or 30 years but ended up on opposite sides (eg. Charlie Stross and Curtis Yarvin, or Laurie Penny and Scott Aaronson)

And now Woit has banned ScottAa from his blog:

One reason people are not discussing the WWII analogy here is that, as I explained, I delete attempts to argue one way or another about justifying the mass murder of children through things like bad analogies. It’s the kind of thing you seem to really enjoy a lot, but makes me sick to my stomach. [...] Actually, that’s enough. If you want to carry on your arguments for killing children, and engage in lunatic rants about everyone being an antisemite, you have your own blog, can do so there.

Woit is a math guy at Columbia who is mostly known for calling string theory a crock of non-science. I don't think he's sneerable. Sometimes his opinions align with a remark by, e.g., Hossenfelder, but he's not ... brain-cooked by engagement algorithms like she is. I check in on Woit's blog occasionally to see if there's news in the world of math that I missed, and the sense I get is that he made the criticisms he wanted to make and would rather talk about things he finds more interesting, whereas Hossenfelder is desperate for those physics is a corrupt cabal clicks.

A defining property of a zombie is that it’s not alive, and thus that destroying it is not murder. Not sure if that was what he was going for.

nah he's almost certainly talking about the post on old-sneerclub, the rationalists seem almost unaware this one exists.

I don't think anyone here would be the sort to do that. I think we have at least an implicit kind of "prime directive" against engaging at all and also our mods have done what feels like a good job keeping us free of rabid Nazis and their sympathizers. Like, I'm not going to claim it's impossible and I fully believe that someone somewhere sent him some truly vile shit as a result of this whole affair, but I would be legitimately shocked if it was any of our regulars.

Really hope nobody here did that.

if anyone from here did then they’re fucking banned, but I need better evidence than none and a standard for anti-Semitism that doesn’t include views that are just anti-Zionist and anti-genocide with no hatred behind them

That survey was taken over a year ago. Attitudes may have shifted somewhat by this point.

For context this is similar to the rate for evangelicals. About 50% of Republicans think Israel is either on the right track or should go farther, compared to 25% of Democrats.