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

Scott Alexander's email shows staunch support for scientific-racism a.k.a. “HBD”

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–16 of 16 posts

Re: Scott Alexander's email shows staunch support for scientific-racism a.k.a. “HBD”

#11

Post by ehmish »

legerdemain wrote: post #10

About 20 years ago at East Coast University, I lived in a shitty, rodent-infested shared house with a guy named Burt Klinkyplink (not his name, but not dissimilar from his name). Burt was a crypto-fascist, in exactly the evasive way that a lot of people on SSC were. "Fascist? Use what's between your ears when you talk. It's not the 1930s and I'm not literally Mussolini!" He wasn't in the College Republicans, because…

This image of this guy you're painting doesn't sound anything like Scott Alexander, if anything Scott Alexander is the opposite of "certain he's right"

Re: Scott Alexander's email shows staunch support for scientific-racism a.k.a. “HBD”

#12

Post by chordalkeyboard »

legerdemain wrote: post #10

About 20 years ago at East Coast University, I lived in a shitty, rodent-infested shared house with a guy named Burt Klinkyplink (not his name, but not dissimilar from his name). Burt was a crypto-fascist, in exactly the evasive way that a lot of people on SSC were. "Fascist? Use what's between your ears when you talk. It's not the 1930s and I'm not literally Mussolini!" He wasn't in the College Republicans, because…

> The furrow of pseudo-intellectual troglodyte conservatism that Scott Alexander and his followers are ploughing is remarkably similar, to a comical level of eccentric detail, such as overstated disdain for poetry and other kinds of absurd, arch gestures of distaste.

This in no way resembles what I’ve seen from siskind and frankly your comments seems like a bizarre form of character assassination.

Re: Scott Alexander's email shows staunch support for scientific-racism a.k.a. “HBD”

#13

Post by legerdemain »

chordalkeyboard wrote: post #12
legerdemain wrote: post #10

About 20 years ago at East Coast University, I lived in a shitty, rodent-infested shared house with a guy named Burt Klinkyplink (not his name, but not dissimilar from his name). Burt was a crypto-fascist, in exactly the evasive way that a lot of people on SSC were. "Fascist? Use what's between your ears when you talk. It's not the 1930s and I'm not literally Mussolini!" He wasn't in the College Republicans, because…

> The furrow of pseudo-intellectual troglodyte conservatism that Scott Alexander and his followers are ploughing is remarkably similar, to a comical level of eccentric detail, such as overstated disdain for poetry and other kinds of absurd, arch gestures of distaste. This in no way resembles what I’ve seen from siskind and frankly your comments seems like a bizarre form of character assassination.

Repeated and sustained interest in explicitly racist fringe ideologues, because "what if there's gold there"? Weary dismissals of "ugh, gender"? Complaints about perceived wretchedness of contemporary art? Anxieties about criminality as a missed harbinger of social catastrophe? Openness to ideas about some kind of across-the-board cultural decay or loss of vigor? Paranoia about being persecuted for the intellectual courage to examine dangerous, yet important ideas?

I mean, this is aggrieved doomsday conservatism in its full, florid form. All that's missing is some outbursts about the ivory tower being packed with radical liberals. And I'm sure I could find plenty of "discussion" of that pivotal issue, with extended citations from other intellectual figures in this "sphere," if I went looking for it in SSC archives.

Re: Scott Alexander's email shows staunch support for scientific-racism a.k.a. “HBD”

#14

Post by michaelkeenan »

ivraatiems wrote: post #5
andrewflnr wrote: post #2

The actual text of the email is very much less damning than the caption.

I don't agree. If anything, I think "racist eugenicist", while probably not 100% accurate to what SSC represents, is not as bad as the actual problem here. Racist eugenicists are easy to ignore; people who are Just Asking Questions are a more challenging problem. That is to say that I don't think SSC is a eugenicist or racist on purpose, necessarily. I think he's a pretty-smart guy who thinks his intellect and knowle…

> The arrogance of being sure you are smart enough to never make a mistake in the ideas you pick up is pernicious and deadly.

I actually really like that Slate Star Codex had a page where Scott listed his mistakes, and that he makes public predictions at the start of each year and rates whether they were correct. These are great ways to keep track of one's thinking, and more people should do it: https://web.archive.org/web/20191224063106/https://slatestar...

Re: Scott Alexander's email shows staunch support for scientific-racism a.k.a. “HBD”

#15

Post by chordalkeyboard »

legerdemain wrote: post #13
chordalkeyboard wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The furrow of pseudo-intellectual troglodyte conservatism that Scott Alexander and his followers are ploughing is remarkably similar, to a comical level of eccentric detail, such as overstated disdain for poetry and other kinds of absurd, arch gestures of distaste. This in no way resembles what I’ve seen from siskind and frankly your comments seems like a bizarre form of character assassination.

Repeated and sustained interest in explicitly racist fringe ideologues, because "what if there's gold there"? Weary dismissals of "ugh, gender"? Complaints about perceived wretchedness of contemporary art? Anxieties about criminality as a missed harbinger of social catastrophe? Openness to ideas about some kind of across-the-board cultural decay or loss of vigor? Paranoia about being persecuted for the intellectual c…

> explicitly racist fringe ideologues

according to you, he is a racist. so all the people swarming the internet to dox him and misinterpret leaked personal correspondence are demonstrating "Repeated and sustained interest in an allegedly explicitly racist fringe ideologue."

> Weary dismissals of "ugh, gender"?

oh no!

> Complaints about perceived wretchedness of contemporary art?

What a Philistine.

> Openness to ideas about some kind of across-the-board cultural decay or loss of vigor?

What moron is open to ideas in this day and age?

> Paranoia about being persecuted for the intellectual courage to examine dangerous, yet important ideas?

Apparently its not paranoia.

> I mean, this is aggrieved doomsday conservatism in its full, florid form.

You've convinced me, he's a terrible person and you're correct to misrepresent his words because he's not entitled to being represented accurately.

> All that's missing is some outbursts about the ivory tower being packed with radical liberals.

Well just pretend its there, that didn't stop you from misrepresenting anything else he posted.

Re: Scott Alexander's email shows staunch support for scientific-racism a.k.a. “HBD”

#16

Post by andrewflnr »

michaelkeenan wrote: post #14
ivraatiems wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree. If anything, I think "racist eugenicist", while probably not 100% accurate to what SSC represents, is not as bad as the actual problem here. Racist eugenicists are easy to ignore; people who are Just Asking Questions are a more challenging problem. That is to say that I don't think SSC is a eugenicist or racist on purpose, necessarily. I think he's a pretty-smart guy who thinks his intellect and knowle…

> The arrogance of being sure you are smart enough to never make a mistake in the ideas you pick up is pernicious and deadly. I actually really like that Slate Star Codex had a page where Scott listed his mistakes, and that he makes public predictions at the start of each year and rates whether they were correct. These are great ways to keep track of one's thinking, and more people should do it: https://web.archive.o…

His humility is definitely one of his appealing attributes, but I gotta say, it's not necessarily enough. I've gone through a couple cycles of thinking I was careful enough about my thoughts and being gently but forcefully humbled, and probably have a few more to go. You can still make mistakes without being aware of the possibility if your humility doesn't look at the right areas of your mind. On the original hand, if someone has to trawl through reactionary trash, I can't think of anyone I would trust more, including myself by a long shot.
Post reply on HN