Hacker News Reader

This group formed in the SF Bay Area, which is known for being one of the most accepting places in the world for LGBT people. If marginalization were the main cause, it seems to me that the group would have been located somewhere else. I think it's more likely that these people had an underlying mental disorder that made them likely to engage in both violent behavior and trans identity.

One big difference the Zizians have with the LessWrong community is that LW people believe that human minds cannot be rational enough to be absolute utilitarians, and therefore a certain kind of deontology is needed.[1] In contrast, the Zizians are absolutely convinced of the correctness of their views, which leads them to justify atrocities. In that way it seems similar to the psychology of jihadists.

1. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/K9ZaZXDnL3SEmYZqB/ends-don-t...

Or more of them live there because it's one of the most accepting environments on the planet, but still not accepting enough to prevent them from being a marginalized outgroup that is quite easy to radicalize by those that would accept them?

"Even the most accepting environment on the planet is still not accepting enough" is not a very flattering description of trans-identifying folks. In fact, I'd call it rather sobering at the very least. It suggests that the ongoing perceived marginalization of trans folks is a nearly unsolvable problem, that can't be addressed simply by advocating for "doing the right thing".

Or, perhaps, we're very far from an adequate society.

That's probably true, but the larger issue is that we're unlikely to redefine society in the name of making less than 1% of the population feel better. The US has struggled for centuries with the question of how to better treat far more number minorities, such as black people... and women.

At some point the, "change society" approach is bound to create backlash that such a small movement can't sustain, and frankly we're seeing evidence of that now. There's also the reality that forget most of the US, most of the world isn't invested in this cause. This is not a universal cause, and while I personally think that's regrettable, it's also clearly just the way it is for now. Change, if it comes, will be far more gradual than some people are prepared to tolerate, and that assumes change continues in a sawtoothed manner in the right direction.

> we're unlikely to redefine society in the name of making less than 1% of the population feel better

Believe it or not, there are actually many popular, far-reaching political ideologies centered around helping "the least of us." It's not such a foreign concept.

Furthermore, the particular ways in which the transgender population is oppressed happen to coincide with many of the ways in which cis women are infamously burdened. It's not "special treatment" that will make this <1% population feel better but a dissolution of the bonds which torment us all. "Nothing to lose but our chains" type shit, yadada?

> Furthermore, the particular ways in which the transgender population is oppressed happen to coincide with many of the ways in which cis women are infamously burdened. It's not "special treatment" that will make this <1% population feel better

It's worth noting that a number of cis women who associate with the feminist movement would strongly disagree with your assessment.

Those ideologies certainly exist, but I can't say that I've ever heard of one staying in power for very long, at least not while genuinely pursuing that ideology. Far more often "for the least of us" is the pitch that gets you in the door, but no real attempt to deliver is ever made.

So again, I'm not debating the value of pursuing these rights, I'm pointing out that this is view opposed by billions. You can't just declare the rightness of your cause and hope it catches on.

> You can't just declare the rightness of your cause and hope it catches on.

Well, duh.

> we're unlikely to redefine society in the name of making less than 1% of the population feel better

If I can deal with idiot conspiracy theorists the evangelicals can deal with trans people.

> the SF Bay Area, which is known for being one of the most accepting places in the world for LGBT people

I live in the Bay. Maybe that is true, but in absolute terms the level of acceptance is still very low.

Like, if Denver is 10% accepting, the Bay might be 15%. Or something like that.

And Vallejo, while part of the Bay Area is a very different place than, say, the Castro. Culturally, it’s probably more like Detroit than San Francisco.

So I’m not sure if you can really draw any conclusions from your premise.

Most of the Zizians who lived in Vallejo moved there from the Berkeley area. The reason they moved was because Curtis Lind felt empathetic and offered them extremely cheap rent. After not paying rent for years (despite at least one of them being an engineer at Google), they ambushed Lind, then tried to behead him and dissolve his body in a vat. Fortunately he was carrying a concealed firearm, so he shot them in self-defense, killing one. Three years later, Lind was murdered by another member before he could testify at the trial for his other attackers.

If there's any sort of marginalization by Lind in that story, I'm having a hard time finding it.

"Invest in residential rental property!" they said. "It will provide a great income stream for your retirement."

We need to keep in mind that Lind was forced by law to give them free rent for two years. He was not allowed to evict them for virtually any reason AFAIK, including nonpayment. Yes, he was supportive and generous, but at some point we all reach our limits, especially when dealing with sociopaths who are bent on taking every possible advantage.

(deleted incorrect claim)

I don’t know where you heard that. According to every article I could find, Borhanian was shot by Lind in self-defense[1]:

> Court records show that Lind shot two of his attackers, injuring one person and killing 31-year-old Emma Borhanian.

Back in 2019, Borhanian was arrested and charged with felony child endangerment and false imprisonment in a protest against a rationalist group.[2]

1. https://openvallejo.org/2025/01/27/man-killed-in-vallejo-was...

2. https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Mystery-in-Sonom...

> If marginalization were the main cause

I think they're crazy first, trans second. They were marginalised for being crazy. Then they found each other because they're trans. Many cults have random attributes shared by the members, whether it be race or sexual preferences. Their race or sexual preference didn't cause them to join a cult, they had other things going on that drove that. But when it came time to join one, they gravitated towards the one that identified with them.

As rachofsunshine suggested, there are quite a few factions and splinter groups within the larger "rationalist" subculture, not just people who happen to be trans and were recruited because of it. My takeaway after spending a few hours down the rabbit hole is that they all seem to be composed of very smart people who have a screw or three loose.

I'm afraid that at some point, some of these people are likely to talk themselves into doing something seriously fucked up. If I worked on AI at OpenAI or Google or Meta, I think I'd prefer to work from home... and if I occupied a visible position on the org chart, I'd hire a damned good private security company to keep an eye on my family.

This is a wild thing to read 8O

>I had a weird encounter on reddit with some users who expressed that "only X people understand how this character in the movie feels". Interestingly, there was no indication that the movie intended this interpenetration.

The death of the author is a reasonable approach to reading a work. But what you said reminded me of the more delusional view in which a) the watcher/reader's approach is the only "correct" one, and b) anyone who disagrees is *EVIL*. An instance of this happened among Tumblrinas obsessed with the supposed homosexual relationship between Holmes and Watson on BBC's Sherlock, and who were certain that the next episode of the show would reveal this to the world. Welp. <https://np.reddit.com/r/the_meltdown/comments/5oc59t/tumblr_...>

You can find all kinds of ridiculous people online, and they're all mostly harmless.

I mean, every LLM post on HN gets people writing fanfic about how AI is developing human intelligence and other silly things.

There's frankly no difference between the two groups -- they are equally silly -- except one is coded female and people like to shit on those hobbies more than male-coded AI fanfic.

I see it mainly as a reaction to a dysfunctional and abusive system/culture, and not necessarily a constructive one.

Fix the world and these problems don't exist.

>Fix the world and these problems don't exist.

Hard disagree. Plenty of antisocial (or worse) behaviour has been promulgated by those indisputably at the top of the social food chain -- almost every war of conquest, for example. Did the British Empire expand throughout the world because the British felt marginalised? No, the rest of the world considered them to be a great power and many other cultures voluntarily adopted their styles of dress and other customs as a mark of "modernity".

A sense of marginalisation (real or imagined) can certainly be a force that acts to reduce empathy and encourage violence, but it's by no means necessary.

Okay, so maybe they still exist but maybe fewer people have a motive to seek violent solutions?

Isn't that implicit in what I wrote?

Of course we should strive to make society just, and this will reduce the motive for violence -- the mistake is to believe that doing so will stop all violence. This might seem a small point, but it's not: Believing that it would stop all violence is a sign that you believe that (a) people are fundamentally good, and (b) have no agency -- that we just react inevitably and helplessly to conditions imposed on us by an external environment. Both of these beliefs are dangerously wrong.

> Plenty of antisocial (or worse) behaviour has been promulgated by those indisputably at the top of the social food chain.

This isn't a counterpoint to "fix the world," because those "at the top of the social food chain" are, of course, partners in an oppressor/oppressed dynamic that prevents both parties from realize their full human potential.

"As the oppressors dehumanize others and violate their rights, they themselves also become dehumanized," Freire says. In a sense, both parties are mutilated by the dynamic.

So "the top of the social food chain" is not a clean sample of a fixed world.

Sorry if I am talking past your point.

The whole food chain is encapsulated in “the world” in this case.

I don’t think your point stands.

> I don’t think your point stands.

Elaborate?

> This isn't a counterpoint to "fix the world," because those "at the top of the social food chain" are, of course, partners in an oppressor/oppressed dynamic that prevents both parties from realize their full human potential.

You described the human condition. This is “the world” we all live in today. Isolating the people at the top as somehow not part of “the world” doesn’t work.

If you consider the winners to also be "dehumanised" by their ongoing winning in cultural and financial terms, as this Freire apparently did, then sure. But they themselves -- the ongoing winners -- certainly did not, that being the reason for their actions in the first place.

The other relevant opinion would be that of the "losers" -- the people oppressed by the winners. Did they feel that the winners were oppressing themselves? I'm certain they did not!

I think Freire is either deluded, or deliberately conflating the notion of what a powerful party views as good for itself with some higher, ethically tinged notion of how we all ought to behave.

> the ongoing winners -- certainly did not

Well, how could they have known?