I paraphrased the entirety of this post, because I couldn’t understand it without going through line by line and translating it from Moldbugian to English.

My Conclusions

Beliefs Moldbug Claims (in order presented)

These are just from this post, as I understood it, and not his other written materials.

• Racism is believing that white people are better than black people. If you don’t believe that, you’re not racist. He hasn’t done any research about modern definitions of racism if he thinks this is a useful shorthand.
• We can learn interesting social principles from “old books”. Personally, I can’t really speak to this. I’d tend to not strongly agree, but I imagine philosophers and sociologists still read Voltaire.
• But ideas engendered by reading old books will not actually affect anyone. A lot of people seem to have strong feelings about the conclusions he’s reached in the past, on both sides, to the point that they are insulting each other and avoiding a professional conference. Res ipsa loquitur.
• There are statistically significant differences between human races in intelligence. He doesn’t go into detail here what the social ramifications of this belief is, but people who have bothered to read his old material say he uses that premise to endorse slavery and other questionable systems of human governance. I haven’t read any of it. I’m ignoring the fact that the only study he cites is of only 69 people — 44 “Caucasian” and 25 “African-American”.
• But those differences can’t be measured in the DNA. This point just sort of directly contradicts the previous one. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
• Smart people are not any more qualified to “run things” than the rest of humanity. This is probably the weirdest idea described here. Even “shit-tier Trump voters” (as he calls them) think that they’re voting for a successful business man.
• Algorithms and engineering should be unrelated to the social ideas of the people who hold them. He doesn’t explicitly say this, but he implies it heavily in the first and last sections. I think this is the point that most of the people supporting LambdaConf’s decision actually agree with, and it’s what he should really be highlighting. He’s either unable to focus his thoughts enough to realize this is the headline, or unwilling to not defend his other bizarre ideas for 5 minutes (even while claiming they’re irrelevant).

Problems with this article specifically

1. It’s repetitive.
2. It’s misleading. This post is not about why you should go to LambdaConf, it’s about convincing you his position is reasonable (despite claiming the opposite multiple times). “My ideas are irrelevant in this context. Now here’s 5 pages of text explaining why those irrelevant ideas are correct.”
3. It’s intellectually dishonest, using logical fallacies & cherry-picked references.
4. It’s confusing. It’s not organized very well, and at least for me, unusually difficult to parse the meaning from.
5. It’s un-necessarily long. See #1 and #4.
6. It gets very aggressive in tone 3/4 of the way through (when he starts ranting about jocks vs the IQ elite). I’m not sure what the point of that is.