Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy • Hacker News Board

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#201

Post by zardgiv » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 7:28 PM UTC

shkkmo wrote: post #199

zardgiv wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate you not challenging the fact that he espouses the belief that some ethnic groups are genetically good slaves. However, you must be really confused (or just not thinking very hard) if you think that people are trying to change Moldbug's mind.

The person I was responding to was using social shaming as one of this two justifications for exclusion. I don't appreciate your tone.

OK, so you recognize that in this case social shaming is not being used to change Moldbug's mind. If you're only talking about one of two justifications, you probably shouldn't state your case as "social shaming can only work when..."

I don't appreciate apologists for people who claim that some ethnic groups make genetically good slaves, so here we are.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#202

Post by richmarr » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 9:03 PM UTC

Turing_Machine wrote: post #122

phillmv wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thought experiment: Is there no set of personal views sufficiently abhorrent to dissuade you from associating with a given person?

How about communism? Communists have murdered somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 million people in the last century. If some guy with idiosyncratic political views and a blog qualifies, surely communists must?

Surely this is about as rationally meaningful as counting the number of deaths caused by people who nominally identify as Christian and basing your opinion of all Christians on that.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#203

Post by zardgiv » Thu, Apr 14, 2016, 4:43 AM UTC

zardgiv wrote: post #193

tomp wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't realise that... In any case, I was only quoting it gor the statistics presented in the table, which seems to have been copied from a DOJ report, and hopefully not tampered with (although now I'm not so sure any more...).

What should be suspect now, and something worth reflecting on, is the narrative being pushed by them since that's usually how "lying with statistics" works.

Amazing. I read some more, and Moldbug's posted approvingly about American Renaissance! It's too perfect.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#204

Post by shkkmo » Fri, Apr 15, 2016, 4:14 PM UTC

zardgiv wrote: post #201

shkkmo wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The person I was responding to was using social shaming as one of this two justifications for exclusion. I don't appreciate your tone.

OK, so you recognize that in this case social shaming is not being used to change Moldbug's mind. If you're only talking about one of two justifications, you probably shouldn't state your case as "social shaming can only work when..." I don't appreciate apologists for people who claim that some ethnic groups make genetically good slaves, so here we are.

> If you're only talking about one of two justifications, you probably shouldn't state your case as "social shaming can only work when..."

I don't see why not.

> I don't appreciate apologists for people who claim that some ethnic groups make genetically good slaves, so here we are.

How am I an apologist? I have defended nothing, merely clarified.

I am now done replying to you as you seem to be merely interested in picking a fight rather than having a discussion.

Re: Final Statement on the LambdaConf Controversy

#205

Post by zardgiv » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 3:14 AM UTC

shkkmo wrote: post #204

zardgiv wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, so you recognize that in this case social shaming is not being used to change Moldbug's mind. If you're only talking about one of two justifications, you probably shouldn't state your case as "social shaming can only work when..." I don't appreciate apologists for people who claim that some ethnic groups make genetically good slaves, so here we are.

> If you're only talking about one of two justifications, you probably shouldn't state your case as "social shaming can only work when..." I don't see why not. > I don't appreciate apologists for people who claim that some ethnic groups make genetically good slaves, so here we are. How am I an apologist? I have defended nothing, merely clarified. I am now done replying to you as you seem to be merely interested in pi…

Usually people who aren't trying to muddy the waters and defend will make a normative statement about the underlying topic. What's your take on whether some ethnic groups are genetically good slaves?