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

Statement on New York Times Article

astralcodexten.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 437 posts

Re: Statement on New York Times Article

#391

Post by kazinator »

panarky wrote: post #378
kazinator wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're in favor of unrestricted free speech for everyone, it necessarily, logically means: - you oppose "cancel culture"; - you're okay with white supremacists having access to audiences via platforms, if someone is willing to provide them with that. Intimidation and suppression cannot be avoided; they go hand in hand with having any sort of rules. For instance, the law against stealing uses intimidation and suppr…

If you scream about private platforms canceling speech you agree with, and then you intimidate and suppress other private platforms when they publish speech you don't agree with, that puts the lie to your ostensible unlimited-free-speech principles.

What if I criticize platforms canceling speech I disagree with, and don't intimidate anyone?

You've built a strawman model of a free speech advocate and are focusing on that. There may be some real life personalities who call themselves free speech advocates who resemble that strawman, but it's still a strawman.

Re: Statement on New York Times Article

#392

Post by skissane »

foldr wrote: post #390
skissane wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I suspect the important thing is that the NYT has no practice of using pseudonyms NYT was happy to write about Virgil Texas of Chapo Trap House without revealing his real name [0]. Implying that their actual rule is: yes to pseudonymity for people with whom we politically sympathise, no to pseudonymity for people with whom we don't. That kind of inconsistency isn't worthy of respect. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/202…

I don’t think consistency is actually that important here. I don’t expect the NYT’s editorial decisions to be perfectly consistent with each other as (a) they’re not necessarily being made by the same people and (b) the NYT makes a very large number of editorial decisions. I do expect those decisions to be justifiable considered individually on their merits. I don’t see any reason not to give Scott Alexander’s real n…

When an organisation justifies its decisions by reference to its policies, evidence that it doesn't apply its policies consistently is relevant to the question of how much we should believe its purported justifications. An organisation worthy of respect will either be consistent, or will openly admit its inconsistency as a shortcoming when called out on it. I'm not expecting the NYT to do that, which is part of why I don't respect the NYT. (The NYT is free to prove me wrong, in which case I will adjust my view of it accordingly.)

What reason did they have not to give Virgil Texas' real name? The article I cited acknowledged it as a pseudonym, so they knew it wasn't his real name. I'm sure they either know what his real name is, or they could have easily found it out – indeed, the first page of a Google search for "Virgil Texas real name" contains the answer.

I think they should respect people's requests for pseudonymity unless there is a compelling public interest in not doing so – which means they wouldn't reveal either Virgil Texas or Scott Alexander's real names. Alternatively, if they don't agree they should default to respecting people's requests for pseudonymity, then they should be consistent in denying it, and deny it to Virgil Texas as well.

Re: Statement on New York Times Article

#393

Post by foldr »

skissane wrote: post #392
foldr wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think consistency is actually that important here. I don’t expect the NYT’s editorial decisions to be perfectly consistent with each other as (a) they’re not necessarily being made by the same people and (b) the NYT makes a very large number of editorial decisions. I do expect those decisions to be justifiable considered individually on their merits. I don’t see any reason not to give Scott Alexander’s real n…

When an organisation justifies its decisions by reference to its policies, evidence that it doesn't apply its policies consistently is relevant to the question of how much we should believe its purported justifications. An organisation worthy of respect will either be consistent, or will openly admit its inconsistency as a shortcoming when called out on it. I'm not expecting the NYT to do that, which is part of why I…

Policies get applied inconsistently all the time for very uninteresting reasons. Inconsistency is what happens by default unless people make an enormous and concerted effort to be consistent. I don’t personally see any inconsistency - just two case-by-case decisions that went in different directions. But even if we grant that the two decisions are inconsistent, I don’t see why this is supposed to be a big deal. It certainly doesn’t mean that one of the decisions is necessarily wrong or unjustified. The NYT has wide latitude to do as it wishes in any given case.

The only interesting question here is whether there’s some overriding reason why the NYT should collude with Scott Alexander in keeping his identity semi-secret (it’s not like it was actually secret anyway). There just isn’t any such reason.

Re: Statement on New York Times Article

#394

Post by belorn »

foldr wrote: post #275
belorn wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Specifically about the feminist point: The quote is explicitly only about "people who talk about “Nice Guys” – and the people who enable them, praise them, and link to them". ( https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_p... ) This leads to several keys questions: Are all feminist such people who talk about "nice guys" and who enable, praise and link to them? The second question is, are all people who…

>The quote is explicitly only about "people who talk about “Nice Guys” He refers to the " already rather thin line between 'feminism' and literally 'Voldermort'", so it's clear that he's talking about feminism more broadly. Elsewhere in his writings there are statements that are completely consistent with this. For example, here he is alluding in passing to the supposed fact that only 30% of feminists are "sane": htt…

One should always avoid finding hidden meanings and attributing quotes to people who has not said them. If he wanted to call feminist voldemort then we would have used the word feminist. Assuming that he actually meant that all feminist are voldemort is simply an interpretation, one which clearly not everyone share including the author.

If the New York Times Article had accused the author of being critical to parts of feminist movement it would likely been more true, and it would likely also be less of a news item to include. A lot of people are critical to parts of the feminist movement. If one wanted to gain outrage then the "sane" quote might have been useful, and at least it would then be a true quote rather than an interpretation. I doubt however it too would sounds enough outrageously, which is why they did not use it.

Re: Statement on New York Times Article

#395

Post by foldr »

belorn wrote: post #394
foldr wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The quote is explicitly only about "people who talk about “Nice Guys” He refers to the " already rather thin line between 'feminism' and literally 'Voldermort'", so it's clear that he's talking about feminism more broadly. Elsewhere in his writings there are statements that are completely consistent with this. For example, here he is alluding in passing to the supposed fact that only 30% of feminists are "sane": htt…

One should always avoid finding hidden meanings and attributing quotes to people who has not said them. If he wanted to call feminist voldemort then we would have used the word feminist. Assuming that he actually meant that all feminist are voldemort is simply an interpretation, one which clearly not everyone share including the author. If the New York Times Article had accused the author of being critical to parts o…

> If he wanted to call feminist voldemort then we would have used the word feminist

Sorry, you’ve lost me here. Are you nitpicking over the difference between ‘feminism’ and ‘feminist’? I don’t see how that helps. The comparison to Voldermort makes it pretty clear that he’s talking about people and not just an abstract ideology.

> If the New York Times Article had accused the author of being critical to parts of feminist movement it would likely been more true.

This is exactly what it said: “some feminists”. (“He described some feminists as something close to Voldemort.”)

Re: Statement on New York Times Article

#396

Post by sjg007 »

kodah wrote: post #388
sjg007 wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet you clearly second guess and misunderstand my intentions. The real problem is the threat vector. Where is it is easier for intelligence services to operate?

> Yet you clearly second guess and misunderstand my intentions I can only go off of what you put in plaintext. > The real problem is the threat vector So, explain to me the threat vector. If we have a threat vector that is substantiated by, "is Russian" then I think we have a problem. If we have a threat vector of, "Government vets first order software dependencies, but not the second order and soft dependencies of s…

I am not going to engage further with moved goalposts. It’s clear what the threat vectors are: Russian intelligence and a lack of due diligence.

Re: Statement on New York Times Article

#397

Post by skissane »

foldr wrote: post #393
skissane wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When an organisation justifies its decisions by reference to its policies, evidence that it doesn't apply its policies consistently is relevant to the question of how much we should believe its purported justifications. An organisation worthy of respect will either be consistent, or will openly admit its inconsistency as a shortcoming when called out on it. I'm not expecting the NYT to do that, which is part of why I…

Policies get applied inconsistently all the time for very uninteresting reasons. Inconsistency is what happens by default unless people make an enormous and concerted effort to be consistent. I don’t personally see any inconsistency - just two case-by-case decisions that went in different directions. But even if we grant that the two decisions are inconsistent, I don’t see why this is supposed to be a big deal. It ce…

> The NYT has wide latitude to do as it wishes in any given case and isn’t obliged to be perfectly consistent.

I think the NYT is perfectly within its legal rights to publish bad journalism. If the NYT decided tomorrow to transform itself into the left-wing equivalent of Breitbart, that would be entirely legal, and so it should be.

But just as NYT has every right to publish what it wants, others have just as much a right to judge it negatively for doing so.

It is not legally obliged to be consistent, and I don't think it should be legally obliged to be consistent either. Giving the legal system the power to police journalism is very risky business, and I don't think the risk is worth it.

However, I personally think it is morally obliged to be consistent, and I will judge it negatively if it fails to be so – you may disagree, but maybe that's a sign that you and I have different moral values.

> The only interesting question here

Maybe the questions that interest you are different from the questions that interest me.

Re: Statement on New York Times Article

#398

Post by belorn »

foldr wrote: post #395
belorn wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One should always avoid finding hidden meanings and attributing quotes to people who has not said them. If he wanted to call feminist voldemort then we would have used the word feminist. Assuming that he actually meant that all feminist are voldemort is simply an interpretation, one which clearly not everyone share including the author. If the New York Times Article had accused the author of being critical to parts o…

> If he wanted to call feminist voldemort then we would have used the word feminist Sorry, you’ve lost me here. Are you nitpicking over the difference between ‘feminism’ and ‘feminist’? I don’t see how that helps. The comparison to Voldermort makes it pretty clear that he’s talking about people and not just an abstract ideology. > If the New York Times Article had accused the author of being critical to parts of femi…

The word "feminists" is not in the quote, and being critical to part of the feminist movement is not the same as calling specific feminist people for being Voldemort.

"He described some feminists as something close to Voldemort" is about as hand wave phrase as it gets, and trying to convince people about an interpretation of a quote is an enterprise doomed before it even started unless the reader already has the same interpretation.

As some last words I have on the subject, I find the whole article utterly dated as well as the quoted sections in it. "Nice guy/bad guy" stereotype hold as much useful utility for social discussions as "Nice girl/bad girl" stereotype. They are example gender based violence direct at getting conformity to gender roles. To the amount the author disagree when people use them I agree with him, and to the amount he himself uses it I disagree with him. Nothing useful can be had from normalize such stereotyping.

Re: Statement on New York Times Article

#399

Post by jhbadger »

Junk_Collector wrote: post #340
jhbadger wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are confusing cause and effect. Cities like SF aren't crowded because megacorporations are located there, but rather megacorporations are located there because they are crowded. SF, NYC, Paris, and London are cities that people have moved to for well over a century, because they were excited to live in places with so much culture, shopping, and restaurants. This has always meant that housing in these citi…

Silicon Valley was built in the valley because that was cheap available land that was mostly empty but still accessible to a major coastal port. It only became the crowded modern environment after the corporations were built there and became successful. San Francisco became big because it was a major shipping port. Not that long ago it was Detroit, Buffalo, Boston, Dallas, Houston, Princeton, Pittsburgh, Trenton, and…

The Valley and SF are different, despite being near each other. The Valley, as you say, started as a chip manufacturing hub and has transitioned over to software and services now that manufacturing mostly gone to Asia. SF is different. While it indeed started (as did NYC) as a shipping port, it has more recent history as a center of creative workers such as authors and artists. The reason that many Internet companies are located now in SF rather than the valley is that they (and the workers they want to attract) want to suggest that their work is cool and creative like that of authors and artists. Of course, an unfortunate side effect of this is making the city even more expensive and displacing the creative people that made the city "cool" to start with.

Re: Statement on New York Times Article

#400

Post by jhbadger »

kodah wrote: post #348
jhbadger wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are confusing cause and effect. Cities like SF aren't crowded because megacorporations are located there, but rather megacorporations are located there because they are crowded. SF, NYC, Paris, and London are cities that people have moved to for well over a century, because they were excited to live in places with so much culture, shopping, and restaurants. This has always meant that housing in these citi…

You are very misinformed. Austin is not "new". It was at competition with Silicon Valley and used to be referred to as Silicon Hill. A lot of hardware manufacturing happened in Texas. At some point, between favorable business laws and Google starting large scale recruiting events it sucked a lot of the talent out of places like Texas. So your statement is more accurately framed as, "Austin is finally recovering as a…

I think the modern attraction of Austin has a bit more to do with its reputation as a "cool" city with its music scene than its history of chip manufacturing.
Post reply on HN