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

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

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 584 posts

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

#481

Post by zozbot234 »

lyssa17 wrote: post #458
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?

Yes, actually. It's a theme that Scott is annoyingly fond of, in his fiction and non-fiction. Unsong is entirely about kabbalistic puzzles as you know. Scott and others before him were enamored with the ideas of Leo Strauss. You can read more about Strauss' ideology of hidden truths that only the brilliant and/or worthy can perceive at the link below. Scott Alexander uses the Kolmogorov post to have plausible deniabi…

> There's a reason writing "HBD" was banned in the comments section

The reason is that most people who casually reference "HBD" have no idea what they're talking about, and end up grossly misrepresenting the actual science as cover for unrelated ideas like ethno-nationalism or bigoted views about other groups. Tabooing "HBD" is a legitimate way of forcing everyone to unpack whatever it is that they actually have in mind; in many ways, it is the opposite of playing dog whistle politics.

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

#482

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

memexy wrote: post #332
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you want more precision then you will need to point me to specific posts of his so we can argue about them This was basically a random selection because I'm curious to hear what your objections actually are: https://web.archive.org/web/20190102011649/https://slatestar...

> Popular consensus believes 100% X, and absolutely 0% Y. He already starts off with antagonism. Where is the data for this? How does he know what the popular consensus is? Why is he drawing such a sharp delineation between "popular" and their association with X and Y? > A few iconoclasts say that X is definitely right and important, but maybe we should also think about Y sometimes. Seems like he thinks he's an icono…

Please note that Scott Alexander is a psychiatrist, not a psychologist.

The two professions are quite different.

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

#483

Post by memexy »

Manfredo_1 wrote: post #468
memexy wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only reason why you'd want me to respond via email is so that your responses wouldn't be public for other people to see. If you want a longer format, I'm willing to break this whole conversation down step by step. I have no fear of public scrutiny. My actions have clearly demonstrated that because I have engaged everyone that has contacted me in good faith but I have not received the same treatment so I'm getti…

Great, you can start by addressing the points raised in the previous comment. They did indeed include specific arguments with quotes from you.

Which one. Quote it and send it on keybase and I will address it when I have time. You can then copy and paste it wherever you want with cryptographic proof that I said it.

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

#484

Post by memexy »

disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #482
memexy wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Popular consensus believes 100% X, and absolutely 0% Y. He already starts off with antagonism. Where is the data for this? How does he know what the popular consensus is? Why is he drawing such a sharp delineation between "popular" and their association with X and Y? > A few iconoclasts say that X is definitely right and important, but maybe we should also think about Y sometimes. Seems like he thinks he's an icono…

Please note that Scott Alexander is a psychiatrist , not a psychologist. The two professions are quite different.

Yes, thanks for pointing it out. Both types of professionals receive training in understanding the human psyche so my point remains unchanged

> A psychiatrist is a physician who specializes in psychiatry, the branch of medicine devoted to the diagnosis, prevention, study, and treatment of mental disorders. Psychiatrists are medical doctors, unlike psychologists, and must evaluate patients to determine whether their symptoms are the result of a physical illness, a combination of physical and mental ailments, or strictly psychiatric. A psychiatrist usually works as the clinical leader of the multi-disciplinary team, which may comprise psychologists, social workers, occupational therapists, and nursing staff. Psychiatrists have broad training in a bio-psycho-social approach to assessment and management of mental illness.

> A psychologist is a person who studies normal and abnormal mental states, perceptual, cognitive, emotional, and social processes and behavior by experimenting with, and observing, interpreting, and recording how individuals relate to one another and to their environments.

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

#485

Post by memexy »

mst wrote: post #467
quantumwoke wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW: there is at least one HNer (me) who has read both subthreads and completely agrees with your assessment of the situation. 'mst is engaging in those time-honored tactics of the online troll - mischaracterise, redirect, disengage. Unfortunately these bad faith discussions are all too common recently and it's sad to see HN swallow the bait.

I am sorry that you consider genuine attempts to get real answers to be trolling with no explanation as to twhy. I continue to stand by my choice to invite people to read the entire thread and draw their own conclusions.

Don't apologize. Stop using such tactics. I already pointed out what you did, how you did it, and why it was disingenuous. If you were sincere you would not have quoted me out of context, you would not have tried to bias the group opinion, and you would not have shifted the blame as you are doing now.

You should just stop because you are no longer making any points.

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

#486

Post by memexy »

mst wrote: post #466
memexy wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's incumbent upon whoever is confused to ask clarifying questions instead of making insinuations about the inadequacy of the person making the argument. If you were confused then you should have asked clarifying questions instead of arguing with incomplete information.

So are you operating on a critical theory lens or not?

I don't know what critical theory is and what it is used for. I use basic reasoning and back up what I say. I used the word critical as in "critical thinking" (unrelated to any actual academic theory of criticality). It's quite simple really. I'm not motivated to make a point other than clarify my own reasoning and I expect the same in return. When someone doesn't return the favor and act in kind then I assume they're operating in bad faith and they have no intention of making an actual argument to clarify but instead they seek to obscure and confuse.

You have demonstrated several times and very clearly you were not interested in a reasoned argument even though I gave you the benefit of the doubt by outlining what I thought and engaged every one of your examples in good faith. You did no such thing and went out of your way to shape and bias the discourse in your favor. So I'm no longer interested in arguing with you or making any more attempts to clarify my reasoning.

If you want to engage further then you can reach me by email or on keybase. I'm no longer interested in being a prop for your performance in front of a group.

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

#487

Post by memexy »

Frampy wrote: post #475
memexy wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which of my points is unfalsifiable? And where did I try to write like him?

Your attempt to rewrite the 'when I was young and stupid' excerpt, where you missed half the point of the piece, excised most of the words and declared him clearly not a good writer. Despite his writing being the reason he was even getting a nyt profile in the first place. It can't be that his writing speaks to people in a way you don't get, he's obviously a bad writer and all of those public intellectuals who are su…

> As for unfalsifiable, you claim there are dog whistles in every second sentence SA writes, and dog whistles are, by definition, unfalsifiable. You can claim anyone can see it if they look critically enough because if someone suggests they have looked critically and found nothing, you can simply claim they didn't do it right and mosey on. Dog whistles are also, by the way, fundamentally incompatible with the principle of good faith you claim to want to prosper. It's an interesting conceit, I'll give you that.

I don't know what a "dog whistle" is or what it's used for. I explained exactly what I meant by "coded" and I made a point about emotionally charged language by rewriting quoted texts to demonstrate good writing vs bad writing.

It's all clearly stated in all my posts. You are welcome to actually quote me and demonstrate directly instead of mis-directing and mis-characterizing what I said / wrote as being a "dog whistle".

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

#488

Post by memexy »

zozbot234 wrote: post #481
lyssa17 wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, actually. It's a theme that Scott is annoyingly fond of, in his fiction and non-fiction. Unsong is entirely about kabbalistic puzzles as you know. Scott and others before him were enamored with the ideas of Leo Strauss. You can read more about Strauss' ideology of hidden truths that only the brilliant and/or worthy can perceive at the link below. Scott Alexander uses the Kolmogorov post to have plausible deniabi…

> There's a reason writing "HBD" was banned in the comments section The reason is that most people who casually reference "HBD" have no idea what they're talking about, and end up grossly misrepresenting the actual science as cover for unrelated ideas like ethno-nationalism or bigoted views about other groups. Tabooing "HBD" is a legitimate way of forcing everyone to unpack whatever it is that they actually have in m…

I don't know what HBD is, care to explain?

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

#489

Post by zozbot234 »

memexy wrote: post #488
zozbot234 wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's a reason writing "HBD" was banned in the comments section The reason is that most people who casually reference "HBD" have no idea what they're talking about, and end up grossly misrepresenting the actual science as cover for unrelated ideas like ethno-nationalism or bigoted views about other groups. Tabooing "HBD" is a legitimate way of forcing everyone to unpack whatever it is that they actually have in m…

I don't know what HBD is, care to explain?

"I don't know what HBD is, care to explain?"

Yup, pretty much.

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

#490

Post by resters »

elipsey wrote: post #55

Sigh. I think this article is holding Scott, and a core constituency of posters and meet up people, guilty by association with every rando on the internet, and also about half of the celebrities in the Bay area. "War against the media" strikes me as ridiculous hyperbole in this context. I have met some of these people in real life, and none of them expressed that attitude to me, nor any kind of utopian superiority. I…

> guilty by association

True. It's peculiar how a nuanced presentation of Scott's blog and the values of rationalist culture are not sufficient, and a crude description of Scott's purity test results is offered to readers, likely so Lewis-Kraus can avoid worry about being cancelled.

Do readers of the New Yorker really need such blatant reassurance that Scott is not a Trump supporter, and that he was actually a vocal opponent of Trump and strategic supporter of HRC?

The New Yorker can't insulate itself from the many illiberal negatives of cancel culture when it stoops to this level.

Post reply on HN