Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Kolmogorov option

scottaaronson.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 476 posts

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#271

Post by ZeroGravitas »

beaconstudios wrote: post #240
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For those unfamiliar with "Cultural Marxism": https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Ma... "This conspiracy theory version of the term is associated with American religious paleoconservatives such as William S. Lind, Pat Buchanan, and Paul Weyrich, but also holds currency among alt-right/white nationalist groups and the neo-reactionary movement.[65][56][66] At Weyrich's request William S. Lind wrot…

if you are trying to imply that I'm a follower of any of these people, I can assure you that I'm not. For what it's worth, my opinion is that there is some lineage between Marxism and progressivism, but that's about it. Nothing to do with holocaust deniers or murderers or white nationalism or any of that nonsense. Not sure what the fact that there are horrendous people who hold this sentiment has to do with the idea…

Do you think the author of the memo, like yourself, just randomly mentioned cultural marxism but doesn't actually believe in it?

Was it a specially coded message intended only for the reasonable, middle-ground, rational people who think there's some lineage between Marxism and progressivism, but certainly not in any way intended for the racist, homophobic, anti-semitic, white nationalist, Christian supremacists who invented and popularised the terms modern usage?

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#272

Post by Hermel »

macrael wrote: post #34

Tell me, truly, is this a view held by many here? That, as the church denounced Galileo's observation that we turn around the sun as heretical, so too our modern PC culture suppresses legitimate inquiry into wether gender is a determinant of programming aptitude? This is a comparison worth drawing? Galileo was a scientist. He published papers, books, treatises. He devoted his life to the pursuit of the truth, found a…

> Damore is a junior programmer who wrote a 10 page 'manifesto' accusing his colleagues of having inferior genes.

Can you cite the parts of his memo that made you believe he did that? Or did you read that "between the lines"?

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#273

Post by zimablue »

typon wrote: post #186

This was such an incredibly self serving post that it's almost funny. Thanks for the bravery Scott, you chose not to argue for what you believe in from your position of immense privilege. A martyr indeed. In any case, people like Scott and others in this thread sound so incredibly childish when talking about "rational" argument being the antidote to the venom of "political correctness" ruining western society. You kn…

It isn't the hill that engineers choose to fight their battle though, is it. The fact that this is the first time such a memo has been written vs the numbers of the internal Google poll demonstrate pretty well that there is a lot of silent dissent.

I agree completely that there are bigger issues but we're human, being told that you will be discriminated against in hiring for whatever reason really bites. In our society your job is everything, your entire security and most people's egos.

Africa etc is more important but I understand the magnitude of the personal stakes and sheer sense of injustice moving this up people's agenda.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#274

Post by beaconstudios »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #271
beaconstudios wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if you are trying to imply that I'm a follower of any of these people, I can assure you that I'm not. For what it's worth, my opinion is that there is some lineage between Marxism and progressivism, but that's about it. Nothing to do with holocaust deniers or murderers or white nationalism or any of that nonsense. Not sure what the fact that there are horrendous people who hold this sentiment has to do with the idea…

Do you think the author of the memo, like yourself, just randomly mentioned cultural marxism but doesn't actually believe in it? Was it a specially coded message intended only for the reasonable, middle-ground, rational people who think there's some lineage between Marxism and progressivism, but certainly not in any way intended for the racist, homophobic, anti-semitic, white nationalist, Christian supremacists who i…

"Cultural Marxism" is just the idea that progressivism is a pivot from economic Marxism. That's it. So yeah, I do agree with that because if you look at the academic literature that defines progressivism you'll see that much of it is derived from Marxist thought. So what? Because I can read some academic literature and know the word for this idea I must be a radical anti-semitic white nationalist? A ridiculous idea. You might as well suggest that VW drivers are all Nazis because the company was created by Hitler.

In case I haven't spelled it out for you clearly enough: I'm not anti-Semitic, I don't deny the holocaust, I'm not a fascist or a Nazi, I'm not homophobic or any of that other bullshit. There are plenty of classical liberals like myself who are extremely skeptical of the progressive movement.

[edit] and if you're wondering where I learned the term, it wasn't from the depths of StormFront or some other alt-right cesspool. It's from a video made by Bill Whittle, who is a pretty mainstream conservative. I've equally seen the term used by Joe Rogan and Dave Rubin. None of these people are radical alt-right Nazis.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#275

Post by posterboy »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #99
jfoutz wrote: post #16

My only complaint is the 'truths everyone knows' but doesn't say. Most people just don't care. there are a few thousand people that think deeply about worldview A, and a handful of others that think deeply about worldview B. Everybody else is worried about milking their cow, or pilgrimage to the holy land, or picking the kids up from soccer practice. When worldview A is dominant, problems are framed in terms of A. It…

This sounds like "epistemic learned helplessness" - in which you realize that, in domains you're not a specialist in, you can't really discriminate between convincing-sounding arguments of different smart people, so you give up trying and default to whatever is the current majority consensus. See http://squid314.livejournal.com/350090.html .

That's a consequence, because one can't be a specialist in most things at the same.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#276

Post by ZeroGravitas »

beaconstudios wrote: post #274
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think the author of the memo, like yourself, just randomly mentioned cultural marxism but doesn't actually believe in it? Was it a specially coded message intended only for the reasonable, middle-ground, rational people who think there's some lineage between Marxism and progressivism, but certainly not in any way intended for the racist, homophobic, anti-semitic, white nationalist, Christian supremacists who i…

"Cultural Marxism" is just the idea that progressivism is a pivot from economic Marxism. That's it. So yeah, I do agree with that because if you look at the academic literature that defines progressivism you'll see that much of it is derived from Marxist thought. So what? Because I can read some academic literature and know the word for this idea I must be a radical anti-semitic white nationalist? A ridiculous idea.…

I didn't say you were. I said that you mentioned "cultural marxism" which you think is a perfectly reasonable thing for someone to mention, as it simply means, according to you, that there is some linkage between modern progressive thought and Marxism.

And I asked if you think the person who wrote the memo was using it in the same way. That seems to be the position the other replies are going for. Just no-one seems to like getting pinned down on this, about what exactly the big bad Marxists are up to with their plans to not discriminate against gay people. Apparently we just mention that Marxists think gay people were oppressed in a footnote to our very sciency memo on what's wrong with diversity and we mean nothing by that at all.

Or he could be intendeding it to be taken in the sense that it is commonly used, in which the jews are held responisble for all the "problems" of modern society, such as environmentalism, gay-rights, civil rights, athiesm and so on.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#277

Post by TeMPOraL »

nl wrote: post #229
Chris2048 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll be honest - I think your example is contrived and/or a strawman, because you chose a "topic" that already seems to have assumed its conclusion e.g Can we have a "rational discussion" on "The benefit that 2 + 2 = 5"? > Why should I have a rational discussions.. I think the question here is whether you can censor other people who want to have that discussion, not whether they can force you to participate. > I'm un…

So which on my list isn't contrived? I'd note that I'm asking question, and I keep getting "we don't need to discuss that" responses.

I think you got your answer early in the thread.

> Is it wrong to be against a rational discussion of (.+)\?

Yes, it is.

The rest is the discussion why - in particular by pointing out that rational discussion does not automatically imply that abhorrent conclusions will be reached or accepted. The primary thing about rational discussion is that some (or all) participants may be wrong. It's also the difference between discussion and shouting through each other.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#278

Post by mseebach »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #246
TeMPOraL wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Related, I was shocked to learn just how popular Soviet ideology was with western intellectuals in early- and mid-XX century, even though there was already plenty of evidence available about how huge a disaster it was. http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/08/11/book-review-chronicles-...

It's easy to identify a disaster with the safety and comfort of decades of hindsight, but rather less easy to see today's contemporary equivalents.

We're not talking about hindsight. The people who got excited in the 30s, then backed away, are easy to forgive.

We're talking about people supporting soviet communism literally for decades after the evidence for the brutality required to sustain it was incontrovertible.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#279

Post by zimpenfish »

Chris2048 wrote: post #249
zimpenfish wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There'll no doubt be many responses along this line but... > There is a longstanding right to "freedom of speech" ...is only true in certain limited circumstances, all pertaining to the government (fed, state, local), I believe. You do not, generally, even in the USA, have a right to "freedom of speech" wherever you are. And you definitely don't have "free (from consequences) speech" anywhere.

Since I'm not American, I'll leave this one for others. But, I'd ask what "freedom from consequences" means? There are certain consequences arising from free speech that are , in some sense, protected. Can I (as a non-government entity) fire someone for choosing a certain religion, for example? Wouldn't that be a "consequence" of their choice?

> Can I (as a non-government entity) fire someone for choosing a certain religion, for example?

Yes. Can you do it without consequences to yourself? No, because that is almost certainly a protected case in law.

Re: The Kolmogorov option

#280

Post by pavlov »

lhnz wrote: post #256
pavlov wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... at one point, all the "pro-diversity" initiatives mentioned in the memo didn't exist, yet someone was able to make the case that they should. Yes -- the management of the company decided this. I don't really understand why Google engineers would assume that they should have free rein to debate company policies, on company networks and on company time...? A public corporation is not a democracy. Publicly second-gu…

> I don't really understand why Google engineers would assume > that they should have free rein to debate company policies, > on company networks and on company time...? The memo was in response to a request on the 'coffee beans' Google Group for input on diversity/hiring programs. A few months later he posted it into the 'skeptics' group and that is when the mob formed. Therefore, he was explicitly doing something t…

Ok, I didn't know that, thanks for the context.

It's very hard for an outsider to judge what is appropriate for a forum called "skeptics". In principle I would assume that same rules of conduct apply there as elsewhere in the company, but I wouldn't know.

Post reply on HN