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

521–530 of 584 posts

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

#521

Post by Frampy »

memexy wrote: post #487
Frampy wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 princip…

Look up the definition of dog whistles then, and discover they mean 'talking in coded language that means one thing to an outside audience and another to the inner circle'. Pretending you don't understand a decades old political term so you can ignore an argument is also not going to engender the good faith dialogue you claim to desire, by the way.

And what was your point about emotionally charged language? Aside from that you don't like it?

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

#522

Post by tripletao »

adamsea wrote: post #516
tripletao wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's your opinion of your grandparent post's description of my comment as "grandiose", "strident", and "hyperbolic"? Are you saying those are fine (without explanation), but "ugly", "disingenuous", and "stupid" (with explanation) aren't? Are you sure that you're not focusing on language to avoid engaging with an argument that would lead you to a conclusion that you find undesirable (i.e., that the NYT intended harm…

I actually agree with the grandparent post, and, I'd originally tried to explain why I thought your previous comment was kinda grandiose, but I kept writing snarky things so ultimately decided to pivot ; ). And, I don't think I'm doing that other thing you're saying but am all ears if you feel that's the case.

I actually agree that my original post was needlessly snarky (and I'm disappointed but not surprised that it got far more engagement than the more nuanced stuff I usually write). I believe that post clearly advanced an argument, though, and that the argument is sound. Leaving aside my language, do you think Alexander actually intended to conceal something from the NYT reporter by deleting his blog (while mirrors remain widely available)? If so, why did he choose such a spectacularly ineffective tactic? I think the deletion was just an (apparently successful) publicity stunt, and that suggesting that he was trying to conceal something in doing so is a smear. It seems like you disagree, but why?

And what do you think is grandiose? I think there's a decent chance that Alexander would have been forced out of his chosen career if the article ran, and that he might be yet. Do you doubt this? That seems like a pretty significant life event for anyone, an odd thing to minimize unless you're indifferent to harm to him.

Finally, what do you agree with in pvg's post? I don't see any argument there myself, just a lot of words with negative connotations.

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

#523

Post by nkurz »

abvdasker wrote: post #502
roryokane wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I understand your comment, you are arguing that according to Scott Alexander’s principles of free discourse, the New York Times publicizing Scott’s real name should be no different from a random online writer arguing a controversial view, e.g. neoreactionary views. Thus, you say that Scott’s objection to the New York Times publishing its article proves Scott’s hypocrisy, because he allows discussion of neoreaction…

1. The content of the article is still unknown. Scott — and from what I can tell most of the rest of the SSC chud community — made an assumption about the ill intent of the author for which there is no evidence. Again the hypocrisy here is delightful given how much of rationalist ideology relies on giving people the benefit of the doubt. 2. Scott's last name is already out there and is ridiculously easy to find. The…

Starting with #1, why do you believe that "Scott — and from what I can tell most of the rest of the SSC chud[1] community — made an assumption about the ill intent of the author for which there is no evidence."

From what I've seen, everything Scott has written has claimed exactly the opposite. He claimed several times that his expectation was the article would probably be mostly positive. In his explanation for taking down the blog, his words were "It probably would have been a very nice article."

In one of the most discussed postmortems, Scott Aaronson explains why he personally vouched for the NYT reporter and encouraged people to cooperate: "I told Scott Alexander and others that I knew Cade, his intentions were good, he was only trying to understand the community, and everyone should help him by talking to him openly."

While there were a few opinions on the blog pre-shutdown that suspected it would be a negative article, these were generally people who had poor earlier experiences with reporters in general, and weren't specific to this case. Countering them were multiple reports from interviewed posters saying that the reporter seemed genuine and well intentioned.

But somehow you've reached the exact opposite impression: that led by Scott, practically everyone assumed ill intent. Since it's easier to define the opinion of an individual than a group, let's concentrate on just Scott. Could you explain how Scott demonstrated his belief that the reporter had ill intent? Has he written anything that would back this interpretation, or is it based on the assumption he actually believes the opposite of everything that he has said in public? Conversely, what would he have said differently if in fact he didn't assume ill intent?

[1] Chud as in Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dweller? Or is this a typo I haven't been able to decipher?

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

#524

Post by tripletao »

pvg wrote: post #518
tripletao wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, in what sense didn't the NYT propose to "doxx" Alexander? As far as I can tell, everyone involved agrees that the NYT intended to publish his real name. Do you have evidence to the contrary? Or are you trying to draw a distinction between publishing his real name and publishing other identifying details like his address or phone number? But the word "doxxing" is widely used for both, and in this case it's clea…

I don't think we need to parse the precise meaning of 'doxx' or even agree on whether it would be ethical or not for the NYT to publish his name. The only thing that has happened to so far is an NYT writer started writing a piece on SSC and called some people. This has caused Scott Alexander to faint on the couch and the response that warrants is probably smelling salts, not the mobilization of all legions west of Ca…

From your implication that this is all an overreaction, it seems like you believe there's no reason to be concerned that Alexander might be forced out of his profession, even if the NYT did run the piece with his full name as they'd proposed (but haven't yet).

Is this because you think it's unlikely that would happen even if the piece did run? If so, then I gave the reasons in my previous post why I disagree--so we have a simple disagreement about a prediction for the future, and we could each give our reasons why we expected our respective outcomes. Why didn't you engage with any of those arguments?

Or is it just because you're indifferent to whether he loses his career, or indeed might be glad to see it happen? That seems most consistent to me with your statements so far--but would you feel the same if the person staring down the Twitter mob were your ideological ally? You yourself? If we normalize this behavior, then what makes you think that it won't be someone you care about next?

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

#525

Post by memexy »

Frampy wrote: post #521
memexy wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 princip…

Look up the definition of dog whistles then, and discover they mean 'talking in coded language that means one thing to an outside audience and another to the inner circle'. Pretending you don't understand a decades old political term so you can ignore an argument is also not going to engender the good faith dialogue you claim to desire, by the way. And what was your point about emotionally charged language? Aside fro…

It's good to know I re-invented a concept that had been in politics for over a decade. Independent discoveries are always fun. I was just making observations but it's good to know what I observed is called dog whistling. So that's a correct assessment then. Scott's writing is full of dog whistles.

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

#526

Post by whatshisface »

adamsea wrote: post #517
whatshisface wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because he wasn't the subject doesn't mean it's okay to make materially false statements about him... > Also I mean your phrase “uncritical childhood exposure to radical literature” is .... weird. Well, I'm not qualified to write for the New Yorker, but surely they could have written a sentence that wasn't false. Maybe you could read a more detailed account on The Atlantic, and decide for yourself how it could b…

That's a great article! FYI it mentions Andrea Dworkin though -- not Judith Butler, who you mentioned earlier. Not an expert but think they're fairly different. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Butler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Dworkin I dunno, just seems like emotions are running high. To be fair, mine included. Sigh ...

I think the association with Butler came from somewhere else* . The Dworkin reference was a positive one in Aaronson's original post. If you're really interested in digging through all the details, the original post by Aaronson that sparked the whole thing was called "comment 171." You may come away from it with different ideas than I, but you'll definitely come away from it with different ideas than the New Yorker. ;)

* I admit that the "somewhere else" could have been my imagination.

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

#527

Post by mcguire »

gwern wrote: post #259
mcguire wrote: post #170

" Alexander’s plea for civility went unheeded, and Metz and his editor were flooded with angry messages. " Surprise! The rationalist community is made up of human beings after all.

Assuming you believe Metz and his editor, and note that "angry" is a pretty milquetoast adjective. Usually when people try to engage in nutpicking, they at least cite death threats, which are a dime a dozen online when people are really angry.

I'm sure if they did, it's not from real rationalists.

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

#528

Post by pvg »

tripletao wrote: post #524
pvg wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think we need to parse the precise meaning of 'doxx' or even agree on whether it would be ethical or not for the NYT to publish his name. The only thing that has happened to so far is an NYT writer started writing a piece on SSC and called some people. This has caused Scott Alexander to faint on the couch and the response that warrants is probably smelling salts, not the mobilization of all legions west of Ca…

From your implication that this is all an overreaction, it seems like you believe there's no reason to be concerned that Alexander might be forced out of his profession, even if the NYT did run the piece with his full name as they'd proposed (but haven't yet). Is this because you think it's unlikely that would happen even if the piece did run? If so, then I gave the reasons in my previous post why I disagree--so we h…

I don't have much interest in re-litigating the hypothetical outcomes via the Socratic Pinniped Textwall Method. I think my comment was quite straightforward - nothing happened and then a very mildly critical meta-article appeared in the New Yorker. Your response starts with hyperbole and ends with what is frankly a conspiracy theory about how journalism works. Which is the sort of thing that is gently ribbed in the article itself, completing the circle!

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

#529

Post by unityByFreedom »

Frampy wrote: post #476
unityByFreedom wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ive never found it either. And there are always comments saying “it’s easy to find” which feeds into the notion that he’s not really anonymous. I don’t buy any of it.

I think the words going unsaid here are 'if you look in the right places', probably because the right places in this situation are not places respectable people want to associate with (for good reason).

Where is the "respectable" part of the internet? It's not like this guy is posting on silk road ...

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

#530

Post by tripletao »

pvg wrote: post #528
tripletao wrote: post #524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From your implication that this is all an overreaction, it seems like you believe there's no reason to be concerned that Alexander might be forced out of his profession, even if the NYT did run the piece with his full name as they'd proposed (but haven't yet). Is this because you think it's unlikely that would happen even if the piece did run? If so, then I gave the reasons in my previous post why I disagree--so we h…

I don't have much interest in re-litigating the hypothetical outcomes via the Socratic Pinniped Textwall Method. I think my comment was quite straightforward - nothing happened and then a very mildly critical meta-article appeared in the New Yorker. Your response starts with hyperbole and ends with what is frankly a conspiracy theory about how journalism works. Which is the sort of thing that is gently ribbed in the…

Have you ever considered the possibility that you're mistaken? I try to myself, which is why I want to discuss with people who hold opinions other than mine, in order to understand why they do and whether I should change my view. You've communicated clearly that you disagree with me, but I'm not sure what else I could get from your comments.

Is there any substantive argument that you'd be willing to engage with? I'm not sure why you keep responding if not. You can't actually believe that nothing happened here, unless you believe that nothing happened in the Cuban Missile Crisis because the missiles never flew.

Post reply on HN