I Am Deleting the Blog • Hacker News Board

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#901

Post by iAmAPencilYo » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 9:58 PM UTC

enriquto wrote: post #624

lhnz wrote: post #614

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The events of the last 4 years, make it clear to me that we are rapidly heading towards totalitarianism. I finally understand the answer to the childhood question of "But, how could this every happen here?" that used to be an automatic response to being taught about awful events in history. When there is extreme moral certainty about societal problems, people can feel that for the problems to be dealt with they will…

If you are a history nerd, reading what people wrote 90 years ago you will realize that we are exactly the same species, and our attitudes have not changed a bit. One of my favorite readings are the essays of french philosopher Simone Weil after two visits to germany in the thirties. She was concerned with the rise of the nazis, while at the same time describing the natural and understandable forces that were making…

> One of my favorite readings are the essays of french philosopher Simone Weil after two visits to germany in the thirties. She was concerned with the rise of the nazis, while at the same time describing the natural and understandable forces that were making them gain support.

Could you point me to those essays? Would like to examine those!

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#902

Post by jahaja » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 9:59 PM UTC

dilandau wrote: post #831

cousin_it wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen moral fashions. What's happening now is bigger, rarer and worse. It's known as a "purity spiral" (Haynes), "mass movement" (Hoffer), "political religion" (Voegelin).

Is it a power-grab or an attempt by individuals to gain social status? I think that it has all those trappings, but underneath is a deep addiction to anger, outrage and the rush of adrenaline that accompanies it. There is also a sort of religiosity that your comment alludes to. >Various thinkers have pointed out that leftism is a kind of religion. Leftism is not a religion in the strict sense because leftist doctrine…

The Unabomber, really? There's something disturbingly smug about thinking that one side is emotional to the point of religious and another side is logical and factual. Maybe it's time for some humbling introspection.

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#903

Post by Izkata » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 10:02 PM UTC

sly010 wrote: post #672

npstr wrote: post #111

Similar effect when reading the news on a topic that one is an expert in - they usually get it incredibly wrong. And then you turn the page and read the next article completely forgetting how bad the reporting actually is - there is no reason to assume they do a better job on topics that one is not an expert in! I think this bias had a name but I can't remember it.

Personally, I call it the Dan Brown effect, because when I was a teen I read "The Da Vinci Code" (I am not expert) a few months before reading "Digital Fortress" (I am somewhat knowledgable) and I found it so profoundly bad that it mad me angry for wasting my time.

I met someone our first week of college who chose a CS degree because of Digital Fortress.

It was awkward and I don't think I saw him again past that first week.

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#904

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 10:04 PM UTC

kerkeslager wrote: post #543

Damn. I've been reading Slate Star Codex for a long time, and he's always been one of the most insightful voices on the internet. I'm really sorry to see him go. After reading this, I looked up NYT's policy of using real names, and it turns out this isn't the worst time that the NY Times has done this[1]. I've long said that if you want to know who an organization serves, see where its money comes from. The NY Times…

[deleted]

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#905

Post by mcherm » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 10:04 PM UTC

It took me quite some time to get through, but I DID call the New York Times to cancel my membership and share the following note: https://www.mcherm.com/journalistic-ethics.html

Interestingly, the person I reached was initially engaging with me but when I began to describe the reason for cancelling my account he sighed and said, "Oh, That." Clearly I was far from the first person to raise the issue today.

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#906

Post by lliamander » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 10:07 PM UTC

panabee wrote: post #897

lliamander wrote: post #829

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NYT has previously respected the anonymity of others, including an ISIS fighter[0]. That the NYT has a blanket policy about publishing real names is possible, but certainly suspicious. > Tim Ferris said it well: "The point is this: you don’t need to do anything wrong to get death threats, rape threats, etc. You just need a big enough audience." True, but a big part of why Scott has such a big audience is his will…

one explanation: the policy exists and symbolizes the ideal for a news organization that prides itself on integrity and transparency. when this journalistic ideal conflicts with the practical concern of creating a story, the organization allows for discretion and trusts the writer to make an ethical decision. in the ISIS case, the article likely doesn't happen without the fighter's cooperation, so the writer must def…

> one explanation: the policy exists and symbolizes the ideal for a news organization that prides itself on integrity and transparency. when this journalistic ideal conflicts with the practical concern of creating a story, the organization allows for discretion and trusts the writer to make an ethical decision.

There's no indication that the cited policy allows for such discretion.

> in the scott alexander case, the article can happen with or without subject cooperation, so the writer can afford to obey the stated policy and increase "transparency" on this story.

Does that also apply to Virgil Texas of "Chapo Trap House"[1]?

It's clear that the NYT does not, in practice, have a blanket policy against pseudonyms. The writer's claims that it does are therefore at least somewhat BS. Violating the privacy of a practicing mental health professional who is obligated to hide his personal life from his patients is a pretty serious mistake. This could all be some sort of bureaucratic bungling, but as the saying goes: mistakes of this magnitude are rarely innocent.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/29/us/politics/bernie-sander...

EDIT: see this as well https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23619347

More and more evidence against such a policy, and for the theory that this is a hit piece.

EDIT2: NYT protecting a therapist's identity in 2015 https://twitter.com/s8mb/status/1275436187713286144

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#907

Post by lliamander » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 10:14 PM UTC

jychang wrote: post #271

thinkingemote wrote: post #170

It doesn't take too much imagination to see how easy it would be to write a hit piece. Scott writes eloquently and in depth, but the news is not about either of those things. Scott has written a few times about problematic issues which have surfaced in recent months and it would be very easy to write "some people say that Scott is ${label}" with just a bit of superficial quotes. Today's climate of online mob justice…

Scott is the type of individual where literally any side of a political debate can write a hit piece with some quotes, because he considers ALL the sides of a debate. Unfortunately, that's a rare trait these days.

I don't think I've seen anyone right-of-center have anything really bad to say about Scott. I doubt any of those outlets (Breitbart, etc.) would want to do that to him.

This may itself be reason for some people to distrust Scott, except that he's probably done more to bring people to a moderate or left-of-center position on some topics than all the people shouting "racist!" combined.

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#908

Post by redisman » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 10:16 PM UTC

cuspycode wrote: post #838

holtalanm wrote: post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has been this way for a while. Outrage/cancel culture is an absolute pox upon our population that really needs to stop.

I am very likely naive in these circumstances, but I honestly don't understand how cancel culture can work at all. So there are some voices on twitter who loudly express their immature mob mentality. Why don't all the sane people just block them and ignore them, and then go on with their lives as if nothing happened?

Because it gets very scary once the handful of truly unhinged people start doxxing and posting graphic and detailed threats and showing up at your house.

Just look at the death threats someone like Fauci is getting for doing his job and informing the public. Not that many people want to deal with being a public target to the worst actors in society.

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#909

Post by JenniferRM » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 10:29 PM UTC

tomohawk wrote: post #893

More background: https://freebeacon.com/media/well-known-blogger-shuts-down-s... NYT has a history of selective doxxing.

I scrolled to the bottom of the discussion, and have been scrolling up... THIS article is the best article on the subject I've read so far (including cited comparisons to other situations that are similar but slightly different) and I regret that I have but one upvote to give it.

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#910

Post by macspoofing » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 10:36 PM UTC

mshron wrote: post #642

I am genuinely baffled how Scott Alexander's post has turned into hundreds and hundreds of comments on cancel culture, as if it was anything near the #1 reason why he'd be in danger if his name was revealed. Being famous is dangerous in every era, doubly so in an era where anybody unhinged basically has access to the same level of information you used to need a private investigator to get. Tim Ferris said it well: "T…

>I am genuinely baffled how Scott Alexander's post has turned into hundreds and hundreds of comments on cancel culture, as if it was anything near the #1 reason why he'd be in danger if his name was revealed.

Isn't it obvious that the upcoming NYT articles is going to be a hit piece with the goal of ruining his personal credibility and professional career.

I hope to be wrong, but somehow I don't think so.

>Being famous is dangerous in every era, doubly so in an era where anybody unhinged basically has access to the same level of information you used to need a private investigator to get.

Nobody would really care if it was just some twitter people bitching on twitter. The problem is that media, employers, sponsors, advertisers, etc. listen to them and act on what they think the mob wants.

And we are way past targeting famous people. The step-mother of the Atlanta cop who shot Brooks was fired for having the audacity of defending her step-son on social media. Imagine a world where you fault a mother for not disowning her son!! WaPo put together a 3000 word article attacking and naming a staffer for a Halloween costume she wore two years ago (with no ill intent!). She profusely apologized, but that doesn't matter - she was fired after being publicly humiliated by a noted paper of record who was also her employer. WaPo did that to their own employee!! How about that "Karen" (a modern day slur against women) in San Francisco who merely inquired, very very politely, if a gentleman who was writing out a BLM slogan on a property if he lived at that property .. she was dragged through the mud, forced into a public apology, which was not accepted (apologies are never accepted but instead are used as evidence of guilt) her small business was shut down (after the mob targeted her customers), and her husband was fired from his job.

This is all great stuff.