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

#531

Post by memexy » Sat, Jul 11, 2020, 2:21 AM UTC

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…

My point about emotionally charged language is that it's deceptive. It's a trick some people use the draw in the reader and get them to identify with the writer instead of the argument they're making. So when I see emotionally charged language I rewrite it in my mind to use neutral words so that I can see without emotional bias what argument the writer is making and reason about it objectively. Emotionally charged language is a sophistic device, it's used to obscure and confuse instead of enlighten.

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

#532

Post by adamsea » Sat, Jul 11, 2020, 2:39 AM UTC

tripletao wrote: post #522

adamsea wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 rema…

Thanks for the response man - appreciate it.

To be honest, with regards to the ultimate intention of the New Yorker article, I don’t know. And with regards to your question, I ultimately don’t know what Alexander intended.

I think that the domain of plausible answers to the questions you raise is pretty big and that the article doesn’t really provide enough information to give definitive answers.

We obviously each had different overall impressions of the New Yorker article and it’s authors intent.

With regards to grandiosity, well, the way grandiosity was talked about in the article and the comment was a combination of “beleaguered” and “potent”, I think.

I may have jumped the gun , but to me your comment read as though you felt a particular group that you had some degree of sympathy with was being deliberately targeted by The NY Times. Thus - beleaguered.

At the same time, that particular comment also had a lot of judgements on various things and on various people’s intentions. Judgements which to me traveled a very narrow chain of logic. Lots of either/or black and white, basically. Which I do too at times. But - Thus - potent.

Hope that’s useful information and not crossing a line to say.

Also obviously I don’t believe that The NY Times is specifically targeting anyone or a group in that way. Which isn’t to say they haven’t. And, I could be wrong. My general take is that the motivations of an org like The NY Times are more multifaceted and nuanced than how they’ve mostly been discussed in this comment thread. Same with the New Yorker

Which isn’t to say I haven’t felt a lot of anger towards their reporting at times.

And, I enjoy both those publications FWIW.

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

#533

Post by adamsea » Sat, Jul 11, 2020, 2:48 AM UTC

tripletao wrote: post #505

adamsea wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think the article is saying that “negative coverage” would necessarily be warranted, just that it would exist, and be negative. I don’t think a hit piece would explain how some potentially controversial SST articles were either later qualified by the author, or, qualified by the author at the time of publishing. > The reporter is unaware that the Internet Archive exists? The content is obviously still readily…

The New Yorker reporter said "creditable reason". "Creditable" usually means "somewhat praiseworthy" so it's weird phrasing; but I interpret the praise as going to the reporter for finding it, implying that the reason would be good. Or perhaps the author actually meant "credible" (or the alternative definition of "creditable" that's a near-synonym), directly stating that it's justified. Either way, I don't see any im…

So, creditable also can mean “worthy of belief” which I think is more relevant. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/creditable

But the very fact we are arguing over the meaning of a single word is, I think, kind of a signal of an anti-pattern, so to speak.

It’s like bikeshedding over a single line of code. Sure, in certain cases that single line might be super important (part of an algorithm, performance critical, etc).

Often however there’s a range of acceptable ways to write a single line of code and, if we want to analyze and understand a codebase, it only makes so much sense to spend so much time on that one line.

There’s a lot more code to look at as well and to understand how something works or the intent of the author of the code we should look at individual lines in the context of the whole.

Plus if we’re going to get that specific about individual words, then it’s even more important to be comprehensive and correct and not jump to one of several plausible meanings ;).

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

#534

Post by adamsea » Sat, Jul 11, 2020, 2:52 AM UTC

whatshisface wrote: post #526

adamsea wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 think we have to make a variety of assumptions to draw any conclusions about what the author of the New Yorker article intended. There’s too little info in the article to go on.

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

#535

Post by tptacek » Sat, Jul 11, 2020, 3:47 AM UTC

tripletao wrote: post #530

pvg wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Have you tried to consider the possibility that you're mistake on this forum, or just other ones? Can you point to an exchange here where that's happened? The search bar at the bottom of the page could help, if none come to mind.

I'm always curious about the expectations people when they write things like "have you ever considered the possibility that you're mistaken". It seems totally ineffective as a rhetorical move, but I wonder if might have some slim chance of being productive if accompanied by a show of good faith. Like, for instance, any evidence whatsoever that the person saying it had ever been inclined to concede anything on the forum.

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

#536

Post by Frampy » Sat, Jul 11, 2020, 3:51 AM UTC

memexy wrote: post #525

Frampy wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes what a remarkable cavalcade of coincidence your life is. And why look at that, you were so busy marvelling over your ability to engage left wing dialogue in the past five years without ever hearing of dog whistles that you plum forgot to address anything I said! What a lark. Let's just pretend I said SA's writing is full of dog whistles and didn't say 'dog whistles, aka coded language, is entirely unfalsifiable and in direct opposition to the principle of good faith argument' - after all, we are already pretending to be engaging arguments in good faith.

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

#537

Post by Frampy » Sat, Jul 11, 2020, 3:57 AM UTC

unityByFreedom wrote: post #529

Frampy wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ...

Lol, fair point, although I was thinking in the other direction - I may not be able to define a respectable part of the internet, but I can definitely think of areas that are less reputable than others. The chans, etc. And it is pretty much exclusively in those places I have been able to find Scott's irl details.

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

#538

Post by tripletao » Sat, Jul 11, 2020, 4:20 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #535

tripletao wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Have you tried to consider the possibility that you're mistake on this forum, or just other ones? Can you point to an exchange here where that's happened? The search bar at the bottom of the page could help, if none come to mind. I'm always curious about the expectations people when they write things like "have you ever considered the possibility that you're mistaken". It seems totally ineffective as a rhetorical mov…

I don't usually comment on political topics like this one, but here's a thread where someone corrected my oversimplified view of the Fed's current bond market interventions. It took several levels of replies for me to understand what they meant, and I later corrected someone else who continued to argue for my initial (and misleading) view:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23421917

Close enough? Or in a different sub-thread here (that the mods seem to have detached), another poster and I probably still disagree on the original question, but we did manage a respectful discussion in which we agreed on other related points:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23783613

I didn't mean it as a rhetorical device--I'm genuinely curious, how someone came to be so sure that I'm wrong that it's not even worth explaining why. There's very few things I'm that sure of.

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

#539

Post by memexy » Sat, Jul 11, 2020, 4:21 AM UTC

Frampy wrote: post #536

memexy wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes what a remarkable cavalcade of coincidence your life is. And why look at that, you were so busy marvelling over your ability to engage left wing dialogue in the past five years without ever hearing of dog whistles that you plum forgot to address anything I said! What a lark. Let's just pretend I said SA's writing is full of dog whistles and didn't say 'dog whistles, aka coded language, is entirely unfalsifiable a…

> 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'.

I wasn't pretending. You said what I described is called a "dog whistle". I have no problem with using that phrase.

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

#540

Post by tptacek » Sat, Jul 11, 2020, 4:23 AM UTC

tripletao wrote: post #538

tptacek wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you tried to consider the possibility that you're mistake on this forum, or just other ones? Can you point to an exchange here where that's happened? The search bar at the bottom of the page could help, if none come to mind. I'm always curious about the expectations people when they write things like "have you ever considered the possibility that you're mistaken". It seems totally ineffective as a rhetorical mov…

I don't usually comment on political topics like this one, but here's a thread where someone corrected my oversimplified view of the Fed's current bond market interventions. It took several levels of replies for me to understand what they meant, and I later corrected someone else who continued to argue for my initial (and misleading) view: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23421917 Close enough? Or in a different…

It's easy to reach certainty that the conversation you're engaged in has no hope of becoming productive, far easier than reaching any kind of (ugh) "epistemic" certainty. It's helpful to recognize that; otherwise, you're at risk of being the annoying dude in the meme sitting behind a card table on a college quad, "change my mind".