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

Resignation Letter

bariweiss.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 716 posts

Re: Resignation Letter

#291

Post by csours »

banads wrote: post #191
csours wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Examples of coordinated liberal messaging based on hate and fear that has had a large impact on social discourse. Note: Safe spaces, affirmative action, etc do not apply for me personally. While they have at times gone off the rails, they are based on inclusiveness, not hate and fear.

How many examples would it take to convince you? And do you think it's possible for humans to claim they are driven by altruistic, while actually being primarily hateful, deceitful, divisive, and destructive?

> How many examples would it take to convince you?

Hundreds, at least. It's been a consistent conservative tactic for decades, to the point where it is unremarkable. Unremarkable does not mean acceptable. See also Trump's lies. Trump lies so often that it's not worth noting each instance.

> And do you think it's possible for humans to claim they are being altruistic or inclusive, while actually being primarily hateful, deceitful, and destructive?

Sure, and it's also possible to sea lion a discussion while claiming to be reasonable. http://wondermark.com/1k62/

I judge that based on outcome and intent.

Re: Resignation Letter

#292

Post by throwawaysea »

jrumbut wrote: post #153
mikece wrote: post #3

"Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at [the New York Times]: that truth isn't a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else." This is a very key point, and what are the consequences of "informing everyone of a truth" that doesn't accurately reflect -- of even contradicts! -- reality? Harm to the reput…

They have 1,600 journalists last year that were sent to 150 countries [1]. What other organization is doing anything like that effort to gather facts around the world? Who is doing more collective discovery (and making it accessible to the public at a price an average person can afford)? I can only think of a handful of organizations that are serious candidates (Reuters? The BBC? Wikipedia?). Weird puff pieces, drama…

I get the point you're making, but when such a tenured and large scale organization is subject to increasing ideological bias, couldn't we also cast the entire 'fact collection' activity as being in support of that bias? Who's to know if the facts are being selectively reported, or stitched together to tell one narrative instead of the whole truth? A similar argument applies to academia - biased researchers will selectively explore certain angles or tell certain stories, and the sheen of academia (the trust given to it) causes the results to be accepted even if they are incorrect.

Re: Resignation Letter

#293

Post by jimbokun »

GaryNumanVevo wrote: post #278
ngngngng wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Completely disagree. And I think Joe Rogan's podcast is the perfect example of how the market is suggesting exactly what you replied to. "Normal Americans" don't read the NYT anymore, or WSJ, or the Post, they listen to Joe Rogan on Spotify and Youtube. There's virtually no limit to who Joe will have on his show, and while he's not a remarkable interviewer, he brings the often vital opinions of his guests on all side…

Weird to see Joe Rogan here, he literally just parrots whatever his guest is saying. Used to love watching until I realized he just repeats whatever sentiment his guest is saying. He had Stefan Molyneux and Gavin McInees on, and never once challenged them on their white supremacist views.

Which makes his podcast a great resource.

The point is to hear what his interesting guests have to say, not for Rogan’s take on what he thinks they are saying.

Charlie Rose used to fill that role, until his bad behavior came to light.

Re: Resignation Letter

#294

Post by mrandolph »

leephillips wrote: post #194
mikece wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I might be misremembering but I thought her appearance on the Joe Rogan podcast was cited by some as her making a fool of herself while trying to answer an honestly curious question by Joe (and I'm pretty sure she's been on since and will almost certainly be making a visit again soon as she's "news hot" right now which is the best time for an interview). As for the future of media, I wonder if long-form podcasting wh…

Can you give me an exmaple of an intelligent discussion there? I’m genuinely curious. I’ve watched parts of a few of his chats with interesting people, such as Sam Harris, but I didn’t last long, as they veered immediately into vapidity and stayed there. (I agree he’s civil, though.)

I find that the more specialist the guest, the more interesting the conversation, especially when Rogan just shuts his mouth and listens to someone passionate about their field.

Lex Fridman, Brian Cox, and Sean Carroll had--in my opinion--super interesting and engaging episodes.

That being said, there are currently over 1500 episodes, so there are definitely a good number of fluff episodes in the mix as well.

Edit: Just thought of a couple more who I found quite interesting. Paul Stamets and Michael Pollen both discussed in their respective episodes research they both participated in, which made them continuous episodes with a fascinating topic.

Re: Resignation Letter

#295

Post by istjohn »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #88
seibelj wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the latest argument from people who claim cancel culture doesn't exist. "How are you being silenced when everyone will read it from your high perch?" High-level writers need to push back against illiberal and anti-free speech proponents to give cover for the lower ranks. If even the top tier writers can't speak their mind, does the lowly intern or new hire stand a chance?

The problem with this rebuttal is that it assumes that the high–level writers and editors are not themselves the illiberal and anti–speech proponents, gatekeeping what perspectives are allowed to be represented in the first place. For example: Harper's Magazine, which published the recent open letter on cancel culture that Bari Weiss signed, doesn't pay its interns [1], ensuring that only those who can afford to work…

This is what-about-ism, not a substantive objection. One need not point out every obstacle to open debate in order to identify one important obstacle to open debate.

Re: Resignation Letter

#296

Post by tootie »

dimgl wrote: post #243
tootie wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling a racist a racist isn't harassment. Neither is firing a racist. This is all stuff that I would expect my employer to be doing to be responsible.

There is so much wrong with this statement. Nowadays, you can label anyone a racist, or a misogynist, or a bigot, and get them fired. That's how discrimination works. It's a label.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with my statement. I didn't say Bari Weiss is definitely a racist because I know nothing about her, but we only have her side of the story. Racism is the discrimination. Being a racist is not acceptable. How it's determined is obviously not cut and dry, but that's what HR departments are for. People don't get fired over accusations, they get fired after investigations. I have seen this play once or twice and the burden of proof is usually pretty high, but having policies that disqualify people for exclusionary attitudes is absolutely the right thing to do.

Re: Resignation Letter

#297

Post by tootie »

Udik wrote: post #233
tootie wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling a racist a racist isn't harassment. Neither is firing a racist. This is all stuff that I would expect my employer to be doing to be responsible.

And who gets to decide if someone is a racist?

HR.

Re: Resignation Letter

#298

Post by GaryNumanVevo »

throwawaysea wrote: post #253

I'm really disappointed to read this. I am a long time subscriber and supporter of the New York Times but have noticed that their brand of news has really changed, particularly since Trump's election. It is frequently - not always, but enough to notice - ideologically biased, and more recently, we're seeing internal details leak out that confirm that the news room has indeed changed to carry a heavy cultural bias int…

The Steven Hsu story was relatively recent, but I didn't realize that Steven Hsu was openly associating with Steven Molyneux. He also has a legitimate eugenics start-up.

Re: Resignation Letter

#299

Post by throwawaysea »

banads wrote: post #285
jrumbut wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have 1,600 journalists last year that were sent to 150 countries [1]. What other organization is doing anything like that effort to gather facts around the world? Who is doing more collective discovery (and making it accessible to the public at a price an average person can afford)? I can only think of a handful of organizations that are serious candidates (Reuters? The BBC? Wikipedia?). Weird puff pieces, drama…

>alternative that does the work of collective discovery. The library

Unfortunately libraries are also subject to the same pressures of ideological warfare and selection bias (see https://www.advocate.com/news/2005/10/07/texas-group-pressur... or https://www.theepochtimes.com/norwegian-library-rejects-chin... or http://www.ala.org/advocacy/bbooks/frequentlychallengedbooks...).

Re: Resignation Letter

#300

Post by mpweiher »

joshuamorton wrote: post #203
seneca wrote: post #117

> Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else. People need to understand that this is on purpose. What we are witnessing is an all out attack on Liberal values by the followers of Critical Theory. > It follows from Horkheimer's defin…

Can you elaborate on what makes critical theoy less of an underlying philosophical idea of western Civilization than whatever else it is you're referring to? Philosophical debate didn't end in the mid 18th century. It's just that post enlightenment philosophy hasn't been taught in the west since the mid 1900s.

Not "critical theory", Critical Theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory

In the current context:

https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-critical-theory/

Post reply on HN