Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media • Hacker News Board

Re: Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

#431

Post by waon » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 3:31 AM UTC

memexy wrote: post #425

waon wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would have said, "I am archiving the blog until further notice because I need to think about what kind of content should be made publicly available because words have power and it's important to think about what information and inferences we make available to others through those words". That's not a way him to raise objections. You're demanding that he shut up. > His suggestion wasn't civil The fact that you kee…

I did not [demand] that anyone do anything. I stated an opinion and backed it up with reasoning about why I believed what I believed. It's silly to jump from what I actually said to what you inferred. > You're demanding that he shut up. I did not demand anything. I gave reasons and arguments about what I thought. He silenced himself by deleting his blog, no one demanded that he do so, he took the action of deleting h…

> I did not [demand] that anyone do anything.

But you repeatedly criticized him for voicing his objections to being de-anonymized. When asked how he could’ve done so differently, you said that he should’ve wrote about how terrible his blog posts were instead. How is this different from demanding that he shut up?

> It's silly to jump from what I actually said to what you inferred.

That’s an explanation of what you’ve been doing all along with the whole “making suggestions” nonsense.

Re: Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

#432

Post by profgerm » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 3:37 AM UTC

DubiousPusher wrote: post #112

modeless wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Banksy's identity is right on his Wikipedia page for anyone who really wants to know. I think NYT and other media are keeping him "anonymous" by way of asking. They could easily publish his name if they wanted. Unlike SSC, Banksy seems to hold similar political views to NYT, so they have no problem playing along. The only truly anonymous public figure I'm aware of is Satoshi Nakamoto and I'm pretty sure that the only…

> Banksy seems to hold similar political views to NYT, so they have no problem playing along. Genuinely curious of your basis for this. As far as I can tell SSC and most rationalist adjacents are basically neo-libs which the NYT has been a bastion of for decades.

One belongs to the Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912, and the other to 1897 [1].

It’s the narcissism of small differences, and the treatment of heretics versus pagans.

They- the NYT and SSC- do have, probably, 99% overlap politically, but that’s not too far off from the difference between humans and chimps either. It’s that last 1% that really generates a lot of friction between them.

As the article says, Scott would tolerate conversations with vile people and egregious ideas. The NYT would rather dox them.

[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2005/sep/29/comedy.religio...

Re: Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

#433

Post by manfredo » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 3:43 AM UTC

memexy wrote: post #430

manfredo wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was Scott's message to the readers: > There is no comments section for this post. The appropriate comments section is the feedback page of the New York Times. You may also want to email the New York Times technology editor Pui-Wing Tam at pui-wing.tam@nytimes.com, contact her on Twitter at @puiwingtam, or phone the New York Times at 844-NYTNEWS. > (please be polite – I don’t know if Ms. Tam was personally involv…

Why is it laughable? I have already said several times what was uncivil about it. If I was a psychologist who read the comments of my posts I would have realize that subtle suggestions can be blown out of proportions and I would be very careful with what words I was using to express my intent . A civil phrasing would have been, "I'm making this decision of my own volition but I personally plan to work out a peaceful…

> Why is it laughable? I have already said several times what was uncivil about it.

Perhaps this was the case, but you seem to have edited many parent comments in this chain with a '-'. Unless the flagging behavior has changed without my knowing. My understanding is that flagging removes the comment from users without showdead enabled, but does not edit the comment.

> If I was a psychologist who read the comments of my posts I would have realize that subtle suggestions can be blown out of proportions and I would be very careful with what words I was using to express my intent.

> A civil phrasing would have been, "I'm making this decision of my own volition but I personally plan to work out a peaceful solution for all parties involved". That would have been civil. Asking anyone to act on your behalf by giving feedback to a 3rd party when it's obvious the intent is negative is not civil. It is sinister.

He explicitly tells people to be police, to not be a jerk, and to be mindful that they are representing the SSC community. How is this failing to express his intent that anyone commenting on his behalf to be civil? And how on Earth is it "obvious the intent is negative is not civil" when he explicitly tells any potential commenters to be civil?

Your suggestion that Scott instead write, "I'm making this decision of my own volition but I personally plan to work out a peaceful solution for all parties involved" is not a rephrasing. It's a completely different message. He is not making this decision on his own volition, he was prompted to delete the blog due to the actions of another person. Your suggested phrasing not only completely omits this fact, but says the complete opposite.

Re: Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

#434

Post by memexy » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 3:44 AM UTC

waon wrote: post #431

memexy wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did not [demand] that anyone do anything. I stated an opinion and backed it up with reasoning about why I believed what I believed. It's silly to jump from what I actually said to what you inferred. > You're demanding that he shut up. I did not demand anything. I gave reasons and arguments about what I thought. He silenced himself by deleting his blog, no one demanded that he do so, he took the action of deleting h…

> I did not [demand] that anyone do anything. But you repeatedly criticized him for voicing his objections to being de-anonymized. When asked how he could’ve done so differently, you said that he should’ve wrote about how terrible his blog posts were instead. How is this different from demanding that he shut up? > It's silly to jump from what I actually said to what you inferred. That’s an explanation of what you’ve…

Is criticism no longer allowed? Isn't that the foundation of rational debate?

I have no opinions on his anonymity. I personally don't care or want to know who he is and wasn't planning on reading the NYT article. I have my own conclusions about SSC and its community that I doubt would be changed by the article and no one here has yet convinced me otherwise or given any compelling evidence to the contrary.

I have explained why I used the words that I did. If you have any more points to make then quote me in context and provide an actual rebuttal instead of calling what I wrote "nonsense".

Re: Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

#435

Post by memexy » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 3:51 AM UTC

manfredo wrote: post #433

memexy wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it laughable? I have already said several times what was uncivil about it. If I was a psychologist who read the comments of my posts I would have realize that subtle suggestions can be blown out of proportions and I would be very careful with what words I was using to express my intent . A civil phrasing would have been, "I'm making this decision of my own volition but I personally plan to work out a peaceful…

> Why is it laughable? I have already said several times what was uncivil about it. Perhaps this was the case, but you seem to have edited many parent comments in this chain with a '-'. Unless the flagging behavior has changed without my knowing. My understanding is that flagging removes the comment from users without showdead enabled, but does not edit the comment. > If I was a psychologist who read the comments of…

> Your suggestion that Scott instead write, "I'm making this decision of my own volition but I personally plan to work out a peaceful solution for all parties involved" is not a rephrasing. It's a completely different message. He is not making this decision on his own volition, he prompted to delete the blog due to the actions of another person. Your suggested phrasing not only completely omits this fact, but says the complete opposite.

If your argument is that he had no choice in the matter then I'm not really arguing with you because in my world people can make choices of their own free will. To assume otherwise is a slippery slope and so I'm not interested in making that argument. If you have compelling evidence that Scott had no choice in deleting his blog then present it and we can argue about it.

Actions have consequences. The kind of community SSC fostered was not able to stand up to scrutiny even though its members pride themselves on reasoned and rational argumentation and scrutiny. When push came to shove they did not uphold and stand up for their own principles, instead they adopted the same tactics that their detractors use (innuendo and vague insinuations of great moral crimes) to defend themselves. You can look at the Twitter threads where people actually "doxxed" the journalist and his interactions and as the kids say "dragged" him on Twitter. It was all very ugly. No sane person would want to associate themselves with that kind of behavior.

Here is an actual trail of evidence for one of the members of the tech community actively harassing a reporter: https://mobile.twitter.com/search?q=from%3Abalajis%20Taylor&....

I have no opinions on the editors or journalists at NYT or any other news publication. I have no reason to believe they're the enemy and yet SSC and its members seem to think so. I find such opinions and the people that hold them confused and irrational (the opposite of certain, reasoned, and rational).

Re: Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

#436

Post by mst » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 3:56 AM UTC

memexy wrote: post #426

mst wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you really wanted people to read the whole thread you would not have shortcircuited the process and replied upstream. And yet, I explicitly said: this is my (opinionated) summary of the thread that ensued from my sibling comment; if unsure whether I've captured things accurately, please read that whole thread and draw your own conclusions. You are welcome to claim that my explicit invitation to people - in a sit…

Where was I "un"-civil by your definition and conception of civility? Again, you [mst] are making vague provocations and insinuations and continuing to carry the conversation into a direction that is unproductive and trying to paint me in a poor light. By turning this into a meta-argument you have derailed the original conversation. I used to just walk away from such conversation but realized I'm letting the bullies…

I stand by my choice to invite people to read the entire thread and draw their own conclusions.

Re: Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

#437

Post by memexy » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 4:07 AM UTC

mst wrote: post #436

memexy wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where was I "un"-civil by your definition and conception of civility? Again, you [mst] are making vague provocations and insinuations and continuing to carry the conversation into a direction that is unproductive and trying to paint me in a poor light. By turning this into a meta-argument you have derailed the original conversation. I used to just walk away from such conversation but realized I'm letting the bullies…

I stand by my choice to invite people to read the entire thread and draw their own conclusions.

In case it wasn't clear I will spell it out. That choice was not what was being contended. It was your behavior of bad faith actions that I was contending. You tried to bias the actual argument and paint me in a certain way by quoting me out of context, which I rightfully called out.

I encourage people to read as well and reach their own conclusions without me putting words in their mouth or biasing their reasoning as you did in your shortcircuit post. Because rational and reasoned argument requires each individual to weigh the evidence and then respond with compelling arguments for refuting or accepting them.

Re: Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

#438

Post by mst » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 4:12 AM UTC

memexy wrote: post #215

yorwba wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> his intention in much of his writing was coded. He would consistently use certain keywords and phrases to make certain associations and when you follow through the logic it becomes very sinister. You mean I've been reading SSC wrong all this time and missed out on secret messages encoded in kabbalistic puzzles?

There is always subtext. There is no need for mystical allusions. You are welcome to go back and re-read his writing with a more critical eye and decide for yourself what you notice.

If "critical eye" means you're attempting to read his work through a critical theory lens then it would have been helpful had you mentioned that in advance so that those of us using other lenses could've been aware that you were doing so. Much confusion might thereby have been avoided.

Re: Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

#439

Post by nikisweeting » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 4:23 AM UTC

anonms-coward wrote: post #120

cinntaile wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An additional way to protest against their decision is to block nytimes.com on your devices. If you use adguard, nextdns or pihole this is easy to do. If a lot of people do this it will have a big impact, their links get posted a lot here on HN!

I don't think that will get the NYT to listen. A better idea is that if you are a subscriber, unsubscribe and give this as the reason. As recent history proves, the NYT truly listens to cancellations. A bunch of people running pihole, not so much for sure.

It's a shame I already burned my NYTimes unsubscribe on the "Send in the Troops" opinion piece...

Re: Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

#440

Post by nikisweeting » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 4:34 AM UTC

I'm saddened by reading most of the HN comments in this thread, the "war against the media" line seems to have actually inspired people to do that, instead of doing the right thing and calling it out as the exact kind of tribalistic nonsense that SSC is all about preventing.