Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media • Hacker News Board

Re: Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

#451

Post by jollofricepeas » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 6:05 AM UTC

vslira wrote: post #221

avsteele wrote: post #39

Article fails to defend the NYT in any substantive way, and the writer makes obvious their biases with statements like: S.S.C. supporters on Twitter were quick to identify some of the Times’ recent concessions to pseudonymous quotation—Virgil Texas, a co-host of the podcast “Chapo Trap House,” was mentioned, as were Banksy and a member of ISIS—as if these supposed inconsistencies were dispositive proof of the paper’s…

> This article is just more propaganda in the evolving war of words between SV and journalism. There's no war between SV and journalism, theres a feud between technologically and business savvy content companies and decaying content companies. Op-eds, moral posturing and long forms are not journalism. Journalism is a truthful representation of facts with analysis added for context to inform the readers, which the NYT…

Along with the rest of HN, you have no idea what journalism is.

When has journalism ever stuck to “facts”?

When has the “news” and “history” been more than short stories and opinion?

Hint: Never

Read: A History of News by Mitchell Stephens https://openlibrary.org/works/OL1854941W/A_history_of_news

Read: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism

Read: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_French_journalism

The role of press is not to be “right” or even factual.

The role of the press is dissent and debate.

The sooner you realize this, you’ll have a deeper appreciation for even those outlets you disagree with.

Read: RT, Al-Jazeera, Fox News, Guardian, WaPo, NYT, NYPost, WaTimes, National Review, New Yorker, Vice

Re: Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

#452

Post by memexy » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 6:21 AM UTC

mst wrote: post #438

memexy wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is always subtext. There is no need for mystical allusions. You are welcome to go back and re-read his writing with a more critical eye and decide for yourself what you notice.

If "critical eye" means you're attempting to read his work through a critical theory lens then it would have been helpful had you mentioned that in advance so that those of us using other lenses could've been aware that you were doing so. Much confusion might thereby have been avoided.

It's incumbent upon whoever is confused to ask clarifying questions instead of making insinuations about the inadequacy of the person making the argument.

If you were confused then you should have asked clarifying questions instead of arguing with incomplete information.

Re: Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

#453

Post by Manfredo_1 » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 6:22 AM UTC

memexy wrote: post #449

Manfredo_1 wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have never argued for any restrictions on free speech and yet you continue to say that I have. Why is this confusing for you? You have repeatedly said that Balaji's actions are harassment. Again, harassment is illegal . Why is this confusing for you? When you say that somebody is harassing someone, you're saying that their actions are illegal and it's the government's responsibility to put a stop to it. For the t…

> Harassment covers a wide range of behaviors of an offensive nature. It is commonly understood as behavior that demeans, humiliates or embarrasses a person, and it is characteristically identified by its unlikelihood in terms of social and moral reasonableness. In the legal sense, these are behaviors that appear to be disturbing, upsetting or threatening. They evolve from discriminatory grounds, and have an effect o…

Again, the fact that someone calling out a journalist for publishing falsehoods and calling them a sociopath for doing so (lying is a sociopathic tendency) is harassment in your eyes is astounding. It's good that we cleared up that you aren't referring to actual harassment here - only your alternative definition of harassment - but it's still surprising to see just easily people are throwing that term around. The next time I hear someone talk about experiencing harassment in their field I need to be mindful that there's a good chance that the're using the term harassment in the same vein as you.

And again, you've still neglected to establish any sort of link between Baiaji and Scott's post. Baiaji didn't even mention Metz or the editor of the technology section. He didn't post about the New York Times' threat to dox Scott until after he posted about Taylor. So establishing any sort of causal link bewteen Scott's post and Baiaji's behavior.

To top it all off, I can't help but appreciate the fact that you're replicating the same behavior for which you are criticizing Baiaji here:

> In fact, he goes further into bullying territory because his actions are repetitive and consistently of sinister nature of painting the free press in broad and negative brushstrokes. He's not just bullying and harassing a specific member of the free press but he does so more generally and demeans the entire profession.

Yet in your post you characterize many people in the tech industry as harassers:

> That's the definition of harassment from wikipedia and it characterizes the actions from many people in the tech community.

So it's bullying when Baiaji paints a group of people in broad and negative brushstrokes. Yet you feel it's appropriate to write that the definition of harassment characterizes the actions of many people in tech.

Re: Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

#454

Post by memexy » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 6:36 AM UTC

Manfredo_1 wrote: post #453

memexy wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Harassment covers a wide range of behaviors of an offensive nature. It is commonly understood as behavior that demeans, humiliates or embarrasses a person, and it is characteristically identified by its unlikelihood in terms of social and moral reasonableness. In the legal sense, these are behaviors that appear to be disturbing, upsetting or threatening. They evolve from discriminatory grounds, and have an effect o…

Again, the fact that someone calling out a journalist for publishing falsehoods and calling them a sociopath for doing so (lying is a sociopathic tendency) is harassment in your eyes is astounding. It's good that we cleared up that you aren't referring to actual harassment here - only your alternative definition of harassment - but it's still surprising to see just easily people are throwing that term around. The nex…

Are you done mis-characterizating everything I say? If not, please quote everything else I've said and characterize them however you want so I can point to actual examples of how you willfully keep mis-interpreting whatever I'm saying.

I've repeatedly told you to write an argument in a longer format if you have any actual points to make but you continue responding to the thread even when I've repeatedly said I'm no longer interested in this discussion because it is tiresome to go around in circles.

Re: Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

#455

Post by zozbot234 » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 6:46 AM UTC

dunkelheit wrote: post #382

zozbot234 wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One trick that I noticed that adds considerable amount of 'spin' while allowing the article to remain factually correct is to present positive things about the group as subjective It's a bit ironic that you would say that, even as others have complained that the "subjective" presentation is just weasel words and fake balance, i.e. saying "Some people think X." when you really really want to say "X." At least when t…

> It's a bit ironic that you would say that, even as others have complained that the "subjective" presentation is just weasel words and fake balance, i.e. saying "Some people think X." when you really really want to say "X." Wait, didn't you just pull that trick on me, by referring to some vague 'others'? :) In seriousness, here is for example the Wikipedia policy that indeed discourages the use of weasel words in at…

> In any case, an opinion stated with no attribution whatsoever appears to bear more weight.

See, this is what I'm not sure about. An opinion stated with no attribution looks just like that, an opinion held primarily by the author. (After all, you can tell that it can't possibly be an uncontested fact, just by the subject matter. I mean, stuff like "news sites are not chasing for clicks" is bound to be controversial.) Whereas if the author says "Some people think X.", they're pointing to something that's supposedly the shared opinion of a whole group, so it looks a lot more relevant. Of course that's just my point of view, I may well be mistaken.

Re: Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

#456

Post by Manfredo_1 » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 6:58 AM UTC

memexy wrote: post #454

Manfredo_1 wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, the fact that someone calling out a journalist for publishing falsehoods and calling them a sociopath for doing so (lying is a sociopathic tendency) is harassment in your eyes is astounding. It's good that we cleared up that you aren't referring to actual harassment here - only your alternative definition of harassment - but it's still surprising to see just easily people are throwing that term around. The nex…

Are you done mis-characterizating everything I say? If not, please quote everything else I've said and characterize them however you want so I can point to actual examples of how you willfully keep mis-interpreting whatever I'm saying. I've repeatedly told you to write an argument in a longer format if you have any actual points to make but you continue responding to the thread even when I've repeatedly said I'm no l…

There's nothing I'd put in an email that I can't put in a comment here. The only reason why you'd want me to respond via email is so that your responses wouldn't be public for other people to see. If you want a longer format, I'm willing to break this whole conversation down step by step.

* Originally you claimed that Scott was being uncivil by directing people to share their feedback on the situation with the New York Times designated feedback contact. Despite the fact that the explicitly directed potential commenters to be civil.

* I asked how this could possibly be uncivil when Scott explicitly tells commenters to be civil, to which you responded that you "have already said several times what was uncivil about it" (you haven't, or maybe it was in the posts that you edited to '-'). You also linked to this twitter post [1] as "actual evidence on twitter of actual coordination among its members for a harassment campaign" despite there being nothing at all indicating the existence of a harassment campaign.

* You then wrote that a civil phrasing would have been for Scott to say that his deletion of the blog was voluntary. I point out that this isn't a rephrasing of the original message, it's a completely different message and one that doesn't capture the fact that the deletion of the blog wasn't voluntary.

* You then claim that it was voluntary, because Scott could have just lived with the negative consequences of leaving it up. I then point out that doing something out of fear of consequences is what it means for something to be involuntary. You also then link to this twitter post [2] as evidence of "one of the members of the tech community actively harassing a reporter". But this tweet doesn't even mention Cade Metz or Pui-Wing Tam. And it doesn't even mention Scott until after the supposedly harassing tweets are made.

How is explicitly telling a community to be civil indicative of incivility? Nothing in your first twitter link even so much as mentions harassment yet you claim it's "actual evidence on twitter of actual coordination among its members for a harassment campaign". How do you convince yourself that taking action under the threat of doxxing and negative impact on your career and patients is voluntary? How is Balaji's tweets supposed to support the claim that Scott is being uncivil - especially when he only mentions Scott after the "harassing" tweets?

Each of your comments gets further from the original claim, and more and more outlandish.

1 https://mobile.twitter.com/eigenrobot/status/128066344682499...

2. https://mobile.twitter.com/search?q=from%3Abalajis%20Taylor&...

Re: Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

#457

Post by memexy » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 6:59 AM UTC

cwp wrote: post #255

amznthrwaway wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are only two rational explanations here: 1) Scott Alexander wanted more attention, and he realized that deleting his site and blaming the NYT for it would garner dramatically more attention, creating opportunities that he wanted. He recognized that he could become a martyr to a certain group, and use that for future gains. 2) Scott Alexander is an absolute moron who did not foresee the Streisand Effect that he…

Funny you should use the word "rational" here.

What's funny about his use of the word?

Re: Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

#458

Post by lyssa17 » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 7:04 AM UTC

yorwba wrote: post #213

memexy wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard to explain but his intention in much of his writing was coded. He would consistently use certain keywords and phrases to make certain associations and when you follow through the logic it becomes very sinister (in fact the comments would take his ideas to their natural conclusion and I did not like what was in the comments and the people that were writing them). If he did not intend his followers to attack…

> his intention in much of his writing was coded. He would consistently use certain keywords and phrases to make certain associations and when you follow through the logic it becomes very sinister. You mean I've been reading SSC wrong all this time and missed out on secret messages encoded in kabbalistic puzzles?

Yes, actually. It's a theme that Scott is annoyingly fond of, in his fiction and non-fiction. Unsong is entirely about kabbalistic puzzles as you know. Scott and others before him were enamored with the ideas of Leo Strauss. You can read more about Strauss' ideology of hidden truths that only the brilliant and/or worthy can perceive at the link below.

Scott Alexander uses the Kolmogorov post to have plausible deniability for his discussion of "race science". There's a reason writing "HBD" was banned in the comments section and it's that it was giving the game away to too many people. (discussion of HBD is not banned, it's simply not permitted for that string to appear - i wonder why that might be)

http://bactra.org/weblog/algae-2014-06.html#drury-on-strauss

Have you missed this post?

http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/23/kolmogorov-complicity-a...

Re: Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

#459

Post by lyssa17 » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 7:06 AM UTC

memexy wrote: post #457

cwp wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny you should use the word "rational" here.

What's funny about his use of the word?

hey, are you on reddit memexy? i'm /u/foobanana, ping me if you are. admire your attempts at reasoning with the unreasonable here.

Re: Slate Star Codex and Silicon Valley’s War Against the Media

#460

Post by lyssa17 » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 7:09 AM UTC

quantumwoke wrote: post #448

memexy wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In case it wasn't clear I will spell it out. That choice was not what was being contended. It was your behavior of bad faith actions that I was contending. You tried to bias the actual argument and paint me in a certain way by quoting me out of context, which I rightfully called out. I encourage people to read as well and reach their own conclusions without me putting words in their mouth or biasing their reasoning a…

FWIW: there is at least one HNer (me) who has read both subthreads and completely agrees with your assessment of the situation. 'mst is engaging in those time-honored tactics of the online troll - mischaracterise, redirect, disengage. Unfortunately these bad faith discussions are all too common recently and it's sad to see HN swallow the bait.

hello! friendly invite to say hi on reddit if you like :) /u/foobanana