What You Can't Say (2004) • Hacker News Board

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#81

Post by bsanr2 » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 1:30 AM UTC

spumoni wrote: post #62

egdod wrote: post #26

“It’s ok to be white” is racist hate speech. Does that count?

Oh, it gets even worse. You can't just not talk about being white. You can't talk about preserving a future for white children.

That seems to be more a case of the topic being a foregone conclusion to the point of triteness than anything else, considering that the only instance in which a future for white children isn't preserved is one in which everyone else is also screwed. In fact, the wealth of white parents is such that they could preserve the future for black children and have more than enough left over for their own.

I wonder how much labeled political correctness falls under this: less fear of social retribution than fear of looking like an idiot.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#82

Post by egdod » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 1:30 AM UTC

ixtli wrote: post #78

spumoni wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, it gets even worse. You can't just not talk about being white. You can't talk about preserving a future for white children.

Yes, it’s terrible that you’re not allowed to reproduce white nationalist propaganda in public.

Thanks for proving the point.

People of literally every race are allowed to be proud of being that race... except white.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#83

Post by jf- » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 1:31 AM UTC

voidhorse wrote: post #70

jf- wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I equate intelligence with reasoning. For me, and realistically most everyone else, intelligence is the ability to reason, formulate solutions to problems and to quickly grasp concepts. There are a host of other skills that are worthwhile and desirable and whatever else, but why pretend that they are the same thing as intelligence? I’m not sure I understand the relevance of your skeptics comment. Edit: you added…

Your differentiation between "intelligence" and "other skills" partially refutes Paul's point in the article. If we were to take your definition, Paul's saying that physicists, because they're better at ratiocination should be good enough at french literature to get a PHD, but based on your claim french literature involves a host of abilities that have nothing to do with intelligence (not strict ratiocination or prob…

> Claims like Paul's are just the intellectual equivalent of chest puffing. Don't get roped into the stupidity. This kind of attitude causes divisions and turns you into a prideful douche. It's indicative most of all that the author takes an extreme pride in whatever he takes to be his "intellect." Goliaths' waiting for their Davids.

Do you not see yourself in this paragraph?

Anyway, I’m sure French literature is a noble pursuit.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#84

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 1:32 AM UTC

yourbandsucks wrote: post #57

traderjane wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which group is countering the strength of straight white males? When one looks at the faces of the powerful in America, what do they see? Gay black women?

Different arenas. You're talking about representation among the powerful in mainstream America, but OP was talking about accepted speech in tech/academia. You can both be right.

[deleted]

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#85

Post by ixtli » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 1:34 AM UTC

This gets posted constantly and every time it gets easier and easier to find white nationalist propaganda in the comments.

Always glad to see whatever ideological bender the administrators of this site are on, providing a platform for hate speech is a price they’re willing to pay for it.

Edit: I’m talking specifically about someone all but quoting the 14 words and lamenting at how society is intolerant of his views.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#86

Post by spumoni » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 1:34 AM UTC

yourbandsucks wrote: post #80

spumoni wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if you would like to visit a place that is tacitly backed by Scott Alexander as a place to discuss cultural phenomena with a wide variety of backgrounds, visit https://www.reddit.com/r/TheMotte/

That's not at all how he described it in his Scott alexander-length blog post on the matter.

Why don't we pull up a direct quote, then?

> At this point this stops being my story. A group of pro-CW-thread mods led by ZorbaTHut, cjet79, and baj2235 set up r/TheMotte, a new subreddit for continuing the Culture War Thread tradition. After a week, the top post already has 4,243 comments, so it looks like the move went pretty well. Despite fears – which I partly shared – that the transition would not be good for the Thread, early signs suggest it has survived intact. I’m hopeful this can be a win-win situation, freeing me from a pretty serious burden while the Thread itself expands and flourishes under the leadership of a more anonymous group of people.

Not sure that proves your point.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#87

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 1:35 AM UTC

kristianc wrote: post #4

The inverse of this seems to be taking hold now: that it’s socially acceptable to say things which are unreasonable, outlandish or downright factually incorrect, if they’re considered to be in service of a cause that ‘our side’ believes in. But yes, this has also been discussed a lot here before.

[deleted]

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#88

Post by porknubbins » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 1:36 AM UTC

voidhorse wrote: post #28

jonahrd wrote: post #5

> It could be that the scientists are simply smarter; most physicists could, if necessary, make it through a PhD program in French literature, but few professors of French literature could make it through a PhD program in physics. Well having taken a lesson from the article, I think he's purely mistaken with this point. (As well as divisive, insensitive, etc..) Quite the hubris to make that assumption!

Totally, it’s the classic blowhard man of science attitude: “I think what I do is more difficult than any other human endeavor and though I’ve never attempted the grand feats of intelligence I claim to be capable of...” there’s a reason actual polymaths and polyglots are rare occurences in history. The very attitude itself shows that what someone has in specialized knowlegde they clearly lack in wisdom, which makes i…

You described how I’ve always felt about Paul Grahams writings except maybe the startup or programming ones on which I defer to him as more of an expert. He is sometimes an engaging essayist and doing what I guess essayists do which is describe the world from their perspective without letting too much rigor get in the way of an interesting story. I just get turned off by making a point like “we don’t say fuck around kids because of our precious taboos and because we want to think of kids as innocent” which is not particularly wrong but so oversimplified as to be not really worth saying except to imply that the writer is more enlightened than the rest of us.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#89

Post by ixtli » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 1:39 AM UTC

egdod wrote: post #82

ixtli wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it’s terrible that you’re not allowed to reproduce white nationalist propaganda in public.

Thanks for proving the point. People of literally every race are allowed to be proud of being that race... except white.

I’m so sick of dealing with people who make this nonsense argument. You know damn well the cultural context the literal words you wrote carry. It’s incredibly (and intentionally!) disingenuous to say this is anything like someone saying “I’m proud to be of Spanish decent.”

You know, come to think of it I’d be weirded out by anyone saying something equivalent, like being proud of being Asian instead of saying “I’m proud of being Korean.” When black Americans talk about black pride that has a specific context: they are proud of a heritage that includes not knowing where they are from because of the slave trade.

The thing is, though, you know this. Further, reasonable people know what you’re trying to do.

Edit: in case anyone is unaware. The original comment is a direct evocation of David lanes 14 words. “ We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.”

Edit II: I appear to have confused the person I’m replying to here with the user that rephrased the 14 words but I’m still pretty sure they’re trying to defend the notions of a far right terrorist.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#90

Post by undecisive » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 1:40 AM UTC

chess93 wrote: post #63

My belief is that people believe whatever they want to believe. If you are liberal it is because you want to be liberal. Alternatively you might just not want to be conservative. Same for the other direction. Naturally formed beliefs are just an afterthought. It goes without saying that this might not apply to everyone or to every belief. For the record, I recognize that perhaps I believe this belief strictly because…

I'm not sure it's that simple. As Mr Graham points out, we are shaped by our echo chambers, the chorus of voices that shout out against our fellow "heretics". As children, those chambers come from our families and religious / community institutions, as dictated by our elders. As we reach our rebellious phases, sure - we scrabble around and find beliefs we want to believe in - but the effort expended in doing so is difficult and the reward is little. From a social perspective, a little deviation acts as a differentiator - we are made interesting within our peer groups by our rebellions - but too much heresy makes us "other". As we get past that, self-realisation comes in waves; nestled between desires of belonging in a new group, we find moments where we are invited to re-evaluate some deeply held truth. Rarely is the re-evaluation self-driven, and almost never is that belief so different that a nearby echo chamber is not crouching nearby, waiting to nurture our newfound "chosen" belief in it's warm, corroborating belly.

For the record, I want to believe your belief. I recognise that this autonomous self-truthing could be the pinnicle of what we as humans could become. I also think the very concept of society becomes a meaningless nothing if it were possible.