Live data from Hacker News

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

newyorker.com

551–560 of 584 posts

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

#551
post #465
post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you argue for matters as much as how you do it. I don't see anything wrong with criticizing people who advocate for racism. Peaceful marches for racism doesn't make racism just, you know.

I don't see any problem with criticising racism either, I just object to the attempts to paint them as violent while in the next breath pretending the Floyd riots were peaceful.

There were marches for George Floyd.

Looting was really just about ... looting.

I don’t think it’s appropriate or fair to say “Floyd riots”, though I’ve said that too at points.

Feel free to disagree.

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

#552

The entire piece is an expression of an ideology digesting a perceived threat to itself and producing antibodies in the form of snide, cognitively limiting tropes. As an example of watching the beast in action, this is a truly valuable specimen. Highly recommend reading it as an example of the form.

FYI I feel like the language you use is kind of dehumanizing - “the beast in action”, viruses and antibodies when talking about people and what they write, etc.

Not saying that was your intent but wanted to share my impression. Don’t know if it’s just me or if others feels similarly.

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

#553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's easy to reach certainty that the conversation you're engaged in has no hope of becoming productive, far easier than reaching any kind of (ugh) "epistemic" certainty. It's helpful to recognize that; otherwise, you're at risk of being the annoying dude in the meme sitting behind a card table on a college quad, "change my mind".

I'm afraid that you're probably right. So what should I have done differently? What could have changed pvg's mind, or at least generated something like a respectful and substantive discussion in which they explained the reasons for their differing views (which you'll see that I did manage with several other posters who disagree with me in this thread)? A snarky original post like the one I wrote here starts from a ne…

Sometimes it's fine just to give up on a thread. Cards->table, I can't tell you what would change 'pvg's mind, because I agree with him.

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

#554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Banksy seems to hold similar political views to NYT, so they have no problem playing along. Genuinely curious of your basis for this. As far as I can tell SSC and most rationalist adjacents are basically neo-libs which the NYT has been a bastion of for decades.

One belongs to the Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912, and the other to 1897 [1]. It’s the narcissism of small differences, and the treatment of heretics versus pagans. They- the NYT and SSC- do have, probably, 99% overlap politically, but that’s not too far off from the difference between humans and chimps either. It’s that last 1% that really generates a lot of friction between them. A…

As a lapsed Baptist and former theology student this has been a favorite joke of mine for years. It has even been a great proverb for demonstrating to friends not familiar with church history the banal origins of the many schisms that has spanned the tree of Christianity. I had no idea it had such a recent or conspicuous origin. Thanks for sharing.

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

#555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually agree that my original post was needlessly snarky (and I'm disappointed but not surprised that it got far more engagement than the more nuanced stuff I usually write). I believe that post clearly advanced an argument, though, and that the argument is sound. Leaving aside my language, do you think Alexander actually intended to conceal something from the NYT reporter by deleting his blog (while mirrors rema…

Thanks for the response man - appreciate it. To be honest, with regards to the ultimate intention of the New Yorker article, I don’t know. And with regards to your question, I ultimately don’t know what Alexander intended. I think that the domain of plausible answers to the questions you raise is pretty big and that the article doesn’t really provide enough information to give definitive answers. We obviously each ha…

Thanks, and I also routinely read both the NYT and the New Yorker. I don't mean to suggest that most or all of their reporters want to use the tools of their trade to harm perceived opponents, just that some non-negligible subset do (as is inevitable in a large group), and their managers seem disinclined to hold them back (which seems new and scary to me). The personal consequences if you meet such a reporter seem potentially disastrous enough (what does a trained psychiatrist do with his life if he can no longer practice?) to be worth a strong warning. Maybe you think it's hyperbolic; but Alexander probably now wishes that someone had given him that warning before he started blogging.

I do think there's an ideological bias to whom an NYT reporter is likely to treat favorably or unfavorably. In this thread and elsewhere, people listed comparably semi-anonymous figures that the NYT declined to name that one might, in the usual oversimplified binary view, described as left-leaning. The world isn't perfectly orderly, and maybe they just got lucky and Alexander got unlucky. I see moderately strong evidence that's not the case, though.

But I'm more concerned that this is happening than to whom. I was aware that Alexander's blog existed before these events, but I hadn't read it much, and I had no particularly favorable or unfavorable impression. I wrote my comment not out of sympathy for Alexander's views, but out of concern that reporters from mainstream outlets now seem happy to bring about or abet actions that are likely to cause people serious and unfair ("Alexander deserved to get fired for what he wrote, so good" is a perfectly consistent and honest position, but I'm actually kind of surprised that no one said that here) harm. I think Marxists are dangerously wrong, but I don't think they should be run out of their unrelated jobs for that reason.

What Alexander feared the NYT would do to him seems to me more polished and subtler than a Project Veritas article on Breitbart, but basically in the same spirit. I do think it's to the NYT's credit that (so far) they dropped the piece, and to the New Yorker's that their piece didn't use Alexander's real name--no one doubts that Breitbart would have ploughed ahead. I'm disturbed that it got that far, though.

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

#556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the response man - appreciate it. To be honest, with regards to the ultimate intention of the New Yorker article, I don’t know. And with regards to your question, I ultimately don’t know what Alexander intended. I think that the domain of plausible answers to the questions you raise is pretty big and that the article doesn’t really provide enough information to give definitive answers. We obviously each ha…

Thanks, and I also routinely read both the NYT and the New Yorker. I don't mean to suggest that most or all of their reporters want to use the tools of their trade to harm perceived opponents, just that some non-negligible subset do (as is inevitable in a large group), and their managers seem disinclined to hold them back (which seems new and scary to me). The personal consequences if you meet such a reporter seem po…

It just seems like a lot of conclusions to draw around an article that hasn't been released yet and which no one has read.

Plus, what if the New Yorker article got something wrong (not necessarily thru negligence)?

Or what if the NY Times article changes between now and its publication (if it's published)?

What if Alexander misunderstood something? Or, what if there are circumstances which people have not chosen to publicly share for whatever reason?

I appreciate you writing back. At the end of the day, it just seems like this whole topic struck an emotional chord with a lot of people for reasons I don't understand, or, don't agree with.

To be fair, I've definitely felt an emotional response. There's a lot of fear going around in the world right now, and understandably so.

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

#557
post #548
post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't apologize. Stop using such tactics. I already pointed out what you did, how you did it, and why it was disingenuous. If you were sincere you would not have quoted me out of context, you would not have tried to bias the group opinion, and you would not have shifted the blame as you are doing now. You should just stop because you are no longer making any points.

"I am sorry", in this case, was meant in its plain meaning of "I feel sorrow about this being the case". Not everything is a tactic. Sometimes people just mean what they say.

> I am sorry that you consider genuine attempts to get real answers to be trolling with no explanation as to twhy.

That's called shifting the blame because you're shifting the responsibility and consequences of your actions onto someone else. That is not how one begins an apology. An apology begins as "I am sorry. I will reflect and consider the feedback given and do better next time. Please feel free to give further feedback if you feel like it and I will consider it and improve my behavior".

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

#558
post #486
post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So are you operating on a critical theory lens or not?

I don't know what critical theory is and what it is used for. I use basic reasoning and back up what I say. I used the word critical as in "critical thinking" (unrelated to any actual academic theory of criticality). It's quite simple really. I'm not motivated to make a point other than clarify my own reasoning and I expect the same in return. When someone doesn't return the favor and act in kind then I assume they'r…

FYI : )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory

"Critical theory is the reflective assessment and critique of society and culture in order to reveal and challenge power structures. With origins in sociology as well as in literary criticism, it argues that social problems are influenced and created more by societal structures and cultural assumptions than by individual and psychological factors. Maintaining that ideology is the principal obstacle to human liberation,[1] critical theory was established as a school of thought primarily by the Frankfurt School theoreticians Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorno, Walter Benjamin, Erich Fromm, and Max Horkheimer. The latter sociologist described a theory as critical insofar as it seeks "to liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them."[2]

In sociology and political philosophy, the term Critical Theory describes the Western-Marxist philosophy of the Frankfurt School, which was developed in Germany in the 1930s and draws on the ideas of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud. Though a "critical theory" or a "critical social theory" may have similar elements of thought, the capitalization of Critical Theory as if it were a proper noun particularly stresses the intellectual lineage specific to the Frankfurt School"

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-theory/

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

#559
post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know what critical theory is and what it is used for. I use basic reasoning and back up what I say. I used the word critical as in "critical thinking" (unrelated to any actual academic theory of criticality). It's quite simple really. I'm not motivated to make a point other than clarify my own reasoning and I expect the same in return. When someone doesn't return the favor and act in kind then I assume they'r…

FYI : ) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory "Critical theory is the reflective assessment and critique of society and culture in order to reveal and challenge power structures. With origins in sociology as well as in literary criticism, it argues that social problems are influenced and created more by societal structures and cultural assumptions than by individual and psychological factors. Maintaining that…

Thanks.

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

#560
post #55

Sigh. I think this article is holding Scott, and a core constituency of posters and meet up people, guilty by association with every rando on the internet, and also about half of the celebrities in the Bay area. "War against the media" strikes me as ridiculous hyperbole in this context. I have met some of these people in real life, and none of them expressed that attitude to me, nor any kind of utopian superiority. I…

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…

He's had mental breakdowns over harassment tangential to the site's function (culture war debates). His relative degree of anonymity and obscurity shields him from the worst of the internet. He may write rationalist essays but he's human.

I understand that you're celebrating his loss, but that's just not a charitable read. He provided one the last bastions of nuance on the internet.

Post reply on HN