“A Statement with My View on Curtis Yarvin and Strange Loop” • Hacker News Board

Re: “A Statement with My View on Curtis Yarvin and Strange Loop”

#391

Post by lexcorvus » Tue, Jun 09, 2015, 2:39 PM UTC

chubot wrote: post #385

lexcorvus wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the burden of proof is on those who claim not-(a), because it is evident at a glance that there are at least some genetic difference between groups. (Detailed genetic analysis, of course, confirms this. Noted anti-racist Henry Louis Gates Jr. has a whole show about it. [1]) There's no law of biology that says evolution only works on physical traits; quite the opposite. Therefore, the burden of proof is on the cla…

There are genetic differences between groups, but claim (a) is that there are such differences that contribute (substantively) to different outcomes -- as you wrote yourself. I don't know of any such evidence. It's controversial to say the least, but if you are engaging me in a discussion, you have the burden of proof on that point. As mentioned, I don't really care for these types of discussions, because either way,…

claim (a) is that there are such differences that contribute (substantively) to different outcomes

That is not claim (a). Claim (a) is that there are genetic factors in group differences, but makes no assertion about their magnitude. You believe that genetic factors make at most a small contribution. You may well be right. But you have offered no evidence for this assertion, and the burden of proof is on you to show it.

I would assume (b) is false without evidence as well.

Given that different groups live in manifestly different physical and social environments, this assumption is also wrong. The null hypothesis is that both (a) and (b) contribute; the burden of proof in both cases is on those who think one or the other is false. Confusing this issue, whether intentionally or unintentionally, is perhaps the most common source of crimestop on this subject. (Not that I blame you; as a crimethinker myself, I can assure you that volunteer Thought Police are everywhere, even—perhaps especially—on HN.)

Of course, in reality the discussion usually goes something like this:

"There might be genetic factors accounting for differences in group outcomes."

"I doubt it, but even if there are such factors, they're small."

"How do you know they're small?"

"Well, how do you know they're not?"

[Caught in trap] "I don't. So let's investigate the magnitude of the effect by examining the direct evidence…"

"That's racist."

Re: “A Statement with My View on Curtis Yarvin and Strange Loop”

#392

Post by pep888 » Tue, Jun 09, 2015, 4:44 PM UTC

topynate wrote: post #41

pep888 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it is not. That is flatly untrue nonsense. It is always SL's decision, that they are making with feedback It saddens me that you're making this obviously fallacious argument, because your reasoning is so transparent. You're a Zionist, who has sworn allegience to a genocidal government. As a supporter of genocide, you are concerned that someday you'll face consequences for your decision to materially support mass…

Much as I dislike entering into this sort of (highly off-topic) conversation, it needs pointing out that "Progressive Except Palestine" was coined by people who agree with you. Just search for it and see what comes up.

It is true that I was wrong about what PEP meant.

It is also true that you are trying to police and shame entrepreneurs who decided to listen to their customers, because you happen to be a voluntary party to (and supporter of) hate crimes and genocide.

Re: “A Statement with My View on Curtis Yarvin and Strange Loop”

#393

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jun 09, 2015, 4:52 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #93

pep888 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it is not. That is flatly untrue nonsense. It is always SL's decision, that they are making with feedback It saddens me that you're making this obviously fallacious argument, because your reasoning is so transparent. You're a Zionist, who has sworn allegience to a genocidal government. As a supporter of genocide, you are concerned that someday you'll face consequences for your decision to materially support mass…

This is not an acceptable Hacker News comment, regardless of the positions it's for and against. Please comment civilly and substantively, or not at all.

[deleted]

Re: “A Statement with My View on Curtis Yarvin and Strange Loop”

#394

Post by sudioStudio64 » Tue, Jun 09, 2015, 6:22 PM UTC

dropit_sphere wrote: post #377

sudioStudio64 wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You aren't trying to say then that the colonial powers assumed control of Africa to stop rape? If I'm doing a wrong thing should I stop doing that wrong thing even if someone else might do something wrong after I quit?

>You aren't trying to say then that the colonial powers assumed control of Africa to stop rape? We should be thankful that they didn't. Who knows how they would have screwed it up? No, the mechanism is a happy accident of nature, that people take care of the things they own . A country with a bunch of rape going on is a disorderly, unsafe country, which is bad for business. It may grate against your idealism (as it d…

I get that social order was produced in colonial Africa, but you kind of have to ask...for whom? To say that there was strong social order for Africans is probably a stretch. The crimes against them were probably legal in a lot of colonial areas. So while they had fewer public works that were rusting it was probably legal for certain parties to commit rape even at the height of colonial Africa.

Rape maybe one extreme...it was certainly the case that crimes perpetrated by Africans were punished differently.

Same thing for the Southern US ...there were some slaves that chose to stay with their masters, but most of them were ok with the hunger and joblessness that came with emancipation.

Is the question in the end something like...Is a safe and orderly society under a tyranny the same kind of good as self determination in the face of lawlessness? Which one is the greater good? Is that even a meaningful question?

(Keeping in mind, I guess, that these kind of beard scatcher's are the hallmark of liberal western privilege.)

Cheers.

Re: “A Statement with My View on Curtis Yarvin and Strange Loop”

#395

Post by amcastillo » Tue, Jun 09, 2015, 6:44 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #320

amcastillo wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If CY's writing on Carlyle is relevant, why is noting that SK lobbies for more programmers to integrate Marx and other left-radical writers beyond reproach? http://blog.steveklabnik.com/posts/2011-12-15-marx-anarchism...

It isn't. The manner in which it was evoked in the above comment was rude and dismissive, and that's the problem. Incidentally, I'm irritated by Klabnik's politics. But I don't find them disqualifying. I am not so sure about Yarvin's. Can I reliably articulate why I think that's fair? No, I don't think so. And I can live with that.

The manner that SK evoked CY's politics has not only been rude but literally dismissive - resulting in the cancellation of an interesting technical talk.

This boils down to personal politics - I only see one camp forcibly silencing another.

Re: “A Statement with My View on Curtis Yarvin and Strange Loop”

#396

Post by steveklabnik » Tue, Jun 09, 2015, 7:05 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #355

yebyen wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am talking about SK, who has never attended strangeloop and admits he did not have any plans to go this year either, who was literally shouting "no platform for fascists" from his twitter account in the immediate time prior to the publicizing of the news of un-invitation. That's what it means. Not just him, of course, but por ejemplo, and since you asked. If we ever do see Curtis invited to speak at any more confer…

If that's true, that wasn't a great thing for him to have done. Later: a cursory look at Klabnik's feed suggests it's likely to be true. Again: not a great thing for Klabnik to have done.

I said that I have not been to Strangeloop before, but that's because it's scheduled during the busiest conference weekend of the year, and I historically always have conflicts. This year, I have a conference that overlaps the first day, and am trying to decide if I can make it work.

Re: “A Statement with My View on Curtis Yarvin and Strange Loop”

#397

Post by nkurz » Tue, Jun 09, 2015, 7:42 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #374

valvar wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yarvin has had at least one other talk (that I know of) about Urbit, and he did not so much as mention anything non-technical. I don't see what grounds you have to assume such a thing about him without any prior evidence of such behaviour having occurred previously.

If you'll read a little more carefully, you'll see that what I'm doing is not making assumptions about what he'd talk about. What you're arguing is that I should make an assumption.

If you'll read a little more carefully, you'll see that what I'm doing is not making assumptions about what he'd talk about

There is a common fallacy whereby people assume that "unknown odds" should be estimated as having a 50% chance of occurring. Your phrase "it seems just as likely" could easily be interpreted to mean that you think there is a 50:50 chance that Yarvin would ignore the tech and speak instead about his political views. Were you to believe this, you'd be making a fairly strong assumption.

I don't think this is what you meant, but I think it's a reasonable reading of your words as written. For the respondent to politely point out that Yarvin stuck to the technical details in a previous talk is constructively responsive to this reading.

If a reader doesn't interpret something you've written in the way you intended it's possible (but not "just as likely") that the reader is not the one at fault. Telling them to "read a little more carefully" is being unnecessarily rude to someone who was contributing useful information.

Re: “A Statement with My View on Curtis Yarvin and Strange Loop”

#398

Post by danhess00 » Tue, Jun 09, 2015, 8:24 PM UTC

Many people smugly note that the Constitution only stops the state from punishing speech. Private parties are free to do whatever they want (including blacklisting the speakers), and those silly free speech defenders are confusing the state with private parties.

But that misses the bigger point, which is that the Constitutional guarantee originates from the principle that free exchange of ideas is a social good. The founders believed in free speech because they believed in enlightenment and in pursuit of truth. They were unafraid of ideas.

These blacklisters fundamentally have an anti-enlightenment mentality, as they have elegantly shown. Yarvin's most basic point in his writings was not that different people are different (this is so obvious that truthful people do not dispute it, although the anti-enlightenment types find it convenient for trying witches), but that the modern Left polices against heresy with the rigor of the Christian church of the long ago past.

It is fitting then that events in Yarvin's life should form a well-publicized proof of his main point.

Re: “A Statement with My View on Curtis Yarvin and Strange Loop”

#399

Post by lexcorvus » Tue, Jun 09, 2015, 8:30 PM UTC

devalier wrote: post #349

tptacek wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no possibility that you will convince me, and so I think that particular discussion is not a good use of either of our time. No part of the obstacle you'd face in trying involves other people's opinions of me; I feel very comfortable with the subsets of people that incline towards and against taking me seriously. If it helps, you can think of my opposition to the notion that blacks are somehow intellectually…

There is no possibility that you will convince me Is there any possible evidence, any possible information, that could convince you that genes for IQ were not equally distributed among the races? For my sake, there would be plenty of possible information that would convince me of the idea of neurological uniformity across ethnic groups, for example: studies of cross-racial adoption that showed the gap being erased, t…

His admission really is incredibly revealing, and refreshingly, even depressingly honest. He's literally saying no amount of reason or evidence could change his mind on a matter that is obviously (in principle) falsifiable. I think it's safe to say that, so far as full contact with reality is concerned, he is a lost cause.

Re: “A Statement with My View on Curtis Yarvin and Strange Loop”

#400

Post by danhess00 » Tue, Jun 09, 2015, 8:49 PM UTC

obstinate wrote: post #198

steveklabnik wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As, I would imagine, the professed beliefs of many on HN, yet here we are.

When it comes to reactionary beliefs, there is a significant contingent on this site that believes one ought to be able to hold them publically with no consequences in any other space. This happened with that Mozilla CEO that resigned, the scientist who wore the shirt with scantily clad women on it, and a number of other situations where the privileged paid nominal costs for their mistakes. It is very upsetting to a…

"It is very upsetting to a subset of our fellow hners that you can't express antisocial ideas consequence-free."

Those who would say that are enemies of intellectual life. Can you safely express ideas outside the Overton Window, for curiosity's sake, on your own time? No, they shout in unison!

But now, for any intellectual worthy of the name, the Overton Window is narrow and constraining. If you fancy yourself an intellectual and you think that the present Overton Window is a big enough sandbox to play in, you are not very much of an intellectual. If noting (for instance) that different people are different is outside of the Overton Window, the sandbox is tiny indeed.