here's the amazing Vibecamp essay where the rationalists talk about "microdosing" meth if they can't take the adderall to become a financial genius like Scoot promised them

there’s so much to sneer at here, but the style is so long and rambling it’s almost like someone with a meth problem wrote it

But you might draw the line of "not good drugs" at psychedelics and think other class-equals are wrong. If so, fair. But where this becomes obviously organized by class is in the regard of MDMA. Note that prior to Scott Alexander's articles on Desoxyn, virtually no one talked about microdosing methamphetamine as a substitute for Adderall, which is more accurately phrased "therapeutically dosing" as the aim was to imitate a Desoxyn prescription. I know this because I was one of the few to do it, and you were absolutely thought of as a scary person doing the Wrong Kind Of Drug. MDMA, however, is meth; it's literally its name: thre-four-methylene-deoxy-methamphetamine. Not only is it more cardiotoxic than vanilla meth, it's significantly more metabolically demanding.

Alexander Shulgin has never quite stopped spinning in his grave, but the RPMs have noticeably increased

chemistry is when you ignore most of the structure of a molecule and its properties and decide it’s close enough to another drug you’re thinking of (and, come to mention, you can’t stop thinking of)

So you might as I do find it palpably weird that a demographic of people ostensibly concerned with rationality and longevity and biohacking and all manner of experimentation will accept MDMA because it is "mind expanding", and be scared of drugs like cocaine because, um, uh,

—and since we’ve asspulled the idea that all substituted amphetamines are equivalent to meth in spite of all pharmacological research, that means there’s no reason you shouldn’t be biohacking by snorting coke. you know, I think the author of this rant might be severely underestimating how much biohacking was really just coke the whole time

You may have seen Carl Hart's admission to smoking heroin. You may have also seen his presentation at the 51st Nobel conference. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dzjKlfHChU). The combination of these two things is jarring because heroin is a Big Kid drug, not a prestige drug, and how, of course, could a neuroscientist smoke heroin? His talk answers this question indirectly: the risk profile of drugs, as any pharmacologically literate person knows, is a matter of dosage and dose frequency and route of administration. This is not the framework the educated, lesswrong rationalist crowd is using, which is despite all pretensions much more qualitative and sociological. His status as a neuroscientist ensures that people less educated on the topic won't rebuke him for fear of looking stupid, but were he not so esteemed we know what the result would be: implicitly patronizing DMs like "are you okay?" and "I'm just here if you need anything."

how dare the people in my life patronize me with their concern and support when I tell them I’m doing fucking meth

I’m not gonna watch Carl’s video cause it sounds boring as shit, but I am gonna point out the fucking obvious: no, you aren’t qualified to freely control the dosage, frequency, and route of administration of your own heroin, regardless of your academic credentials. managing the dependency and tolerance profile for high-risk and (let’s be real) low reward shit like meth and coke yourself is extremely difficult in ways that education doesn’t fix, and what in the fuck is even the point of it? you’re just biohacking yourself into becoming the kind of asshole who acts like he’s on coke all the time

How does this person manage to be such a fucking asshole in his own story? Also, you are going to use the definition of fucking rape as an example of a definition that has been stretched too far? What are these people on?

Oh, right. Meth.

Of course I ignore your warnings and proceed to read this shit from the beginning.

And before you say, as many people I'm sure will, that language changes or evolves and so forth: shall I presume many of you have no objection to being called 'nazis' in the standard twitter-left definition? Shall I treat all drunk sex as 'rape' because kidnapper-rape and frat-sex have the commonality of reduced consent? Shall I treat your remarks about this-or-that group as 'hate speech', or 'violence', in the form of speech? Clearly, we have some sense by which concept creep exists; by which definitions can be stretched dishonestly. That is what you're doing, and you know what you're doing.

Cool. Cool. This is fun.

As an adhd enjoyer, the idea of someone using our prescription stimulant medications of justify raw dogging gas station meth is fucking wild. Stimulant meds have been around since the 50s, but they are waaaaaaay better now, mostly because of novel delivery systems that carefully control the release rate of the active compound. I've learned the hard way that while generic allegra-d is fine, you can't fuck around with your adhd meds this way, because the difference between generics varies wildly, and unless you request particular manufacturers -- any or all of which may be in short supply when you request it -- you're playing russian roulette with your executive functioning for the next month.

Getting generic adderall xr is like buying a plane ticket, but not knowing until you board whether it's an Airbus, a Boeing, or an Ork Wagon with a thousand pounds of fireworks glued onto the roof.

Then these guys are just going to do meth that they got from a guy?

Jesus.

Edit: do you reckon that meth > GMO mouth bacteria?

(it's a very long boring rambling essay where a horrible person talks about his fellow horrible people, for the bit about meth just ctrl-F for "meth " and marvel at what fucking galaxy brainlets the rationalists are)

yeah dude the reason people think MDMA isn’t worse than meth is that it isn’t their heart rate they’re worried about with habit-forming meth consumption

i've just realized - the endless prose is drug-fuelled. blog post part vii == i am doing drugs and cannot stop typing

@dgerard Why is it that all these rationalist screeds read like deeply stupid versions of Naked Lunch?

This is 10000 words to promote being a garbage person, what the fuck.

When the average rationalist screed looks like this, I assume the reason they're so absolutist for freedom of speech is because they never actually read each other's speech.

some rat-on-rat friendly fire

There's intense arrogance to insisting that your existence is too fragile to be shown to the world, while also believing that you are what needs to be injected into the human vat of lifestream, while looking like the byproduct of a 12 year old who snuck into his dad's liquor cabinet and fucked around with the Skyrim character creator. Doubly so when you have the mental discipline of a literally sophomoric dilettante, or when it's unclear that your personality genetics would translate to someone the rest of the world would want to talk to for more than a few hours.

in what i assume is part where he talks about why no one wants to fuck rationalists (i'm just skimming this shit)

I never wondered what a microdosed meth-fueled article would look like. Thank you for this.

<I ain't reading all that.jpg>

These kids really think if they pick up some trailer park rock candy they can become Paul Erdos. Hate to say it lads, he was simply built different.

Oh. My. God.

Is there another Scoot that isn’t Scott Henson (RIP my sweet tiger)?

Thats Eigan’s wife he’s talking about btw.

I can only assume the vibes were rancid

This is an exceptionally long article, which mentions meth, once. Was it written by someone on meth?

I'm gonna risk coming off too harsh and say this gaggle of meth microdosing ratfucks don't deserve rehab, they deserve to rot in jail. Fuck them.