3 ms·

At least StrangeLoop's clearly vindicated now. Unlike Lambdaconf, they didn't stoop to getting cash from KKK-types like (https://twitter.com/clarkhat/status/682

At least StrangeLoop's clearly vindicated now. Unlike Lambdaconf, they didn't stoop to getting cash from KKK-types like (https://twitter.com/clarkhat/status/682022959830151168 https://twitter.com/clarkhat/status/682022959830151168): Neil deGrasse Tyson: "There's nothing you can ever tell scientists about the natural world that will hurt their feelings." Grim Dark Future Hat: "Blacks have lower average IQs. Your move." Guess there's reasons not to invite speakers notorious for advocating racism against fellow conference-goers and their families! [1] (And why one hires knowledgeable diversity consultants who've seen these dynamics a thousand times.) [1] "It was really quite lovely. Later that day, in the jeep to the ranch house where everyone was staying, he started up with the casual racism, and everyone ignored him." (https://twitter.com/maradydd/status/606799534983770112 https://twitter.com/maradydd/status/606799534983770112)

devalier 11y ago
So are the 52 psychologists who signed this scientific consensus about the bell curve all KKK-types -- https://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997mainstream.pdf https://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997mainstrea... ? Guess there's a reason we don't invite speakers notorious for advocating enslaving fellow conference-goers' families So our standard is, if diversity activists can lie, and make the lies stick, then we don't let the target of their lies speak anywhere? Sounds reasonable.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- calibraxis 11y ago
  > we don't let the target of their lies speak anywhere Speaking of "lies": not inviting him to a private event != not letting him speak "anywhere". (Furthermore, this response came 9 minutes after mine, and carries a quote I immediately edited and cited evidence for. While fuming about the Lambdaconf sponsor author's attempt to "hurt" Neil Degrasse Tyson, I was momentarily careless.) > signed this scientific consensus about the bell curve If you'll excuse me, I do not have any interest in debating The Bell Curve (I believe about race & IQ?) with people who rapidly show up to support obvious racists and write stuff like: (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10945507 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10945507)
  - not_that_scott 11y ago
    So, you're refusing to discuss their claim, on the grounds that they previously made claims that you would also refuse discuss? Now this is a fun little recursion puzzle.
    - calibraxis 11y ago
      Why? It's a non-sequitur. Neil Degrasse Tyson said "the natural world". IQ tests are fleeting human-made constructs which have nothing to do with laws of the universe. And to talk of "scientific consensus" regarding social pseudo-science... The whole point is to attack Blacks using techniques of so-called "scientific racism". (And not discussing racist pseudo-science is merely protection of your own intelligence. My brief neglect to cite evidence warned me that exposure to low standards made my own slip! :)
      - dang 11y ago
        Your account has also taken a wrong turn into using this site exclusively for ideological ranting. We haven't banned you because I don't think you're doing it on purpose, but please stop doing it. It's really tedious. The enemies who blast this stuff at each other resemble no one so much as each other. Meanwhile the rest of us just want to get away from it. It isn't productive, and it spoils HN for things that are actually interesting, which spoils its whole purpose.
- dang 11y ago
  You've been using HN as a dumping ground for ideological boilerplate for a long time. That's an abuse of this site. We asked you to stop but you didn't, so we've banned this account. Inflammatory political arguments and talking points degrade this place, as the utter lameness of the current subthread makes clear. That isn't conversation; it's destructive of conversation. We want good conversation here. Good conversation is unpredictable and involves people listening to and respecting one another. That's what matters, not blasting people with predetermined rhetoric.

devalier 11y ago

So are the 52 psychologists who signed this scientific consensus about the bell curve all KKK-types -- https://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997mainstream.pdf https://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997mainstrea... ? Guess there's a reason we don't invite speakers notorious for advocating enslaving fellow conference-goers' families So our standard is, if diversity activists can lie, and make the lies stick, then we don't let the target of their lies speak anywhere? Sounds reasonable.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
calibraxis 11y ago
> we don't let the target of their lies speak anywhere Speaking of "lies": not inviting him to a private event != not letting him speak "anywhere". (Furthermore, this response came 9 minutes after mine, and carries a quote I immediately edited and cited evidence for. While fuming about the Lambdaconf sponsor author's attempt to "hurt" Neil Degrasse Tyson, I was momentarily careless.) > signed this scientific consensus about the bell curve If you'll excuse me, I do not have any interest in debating The Bell Curve (I believe about race & IQ?) with people who rapidly show up to support obvious racists and write stuff like: (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10945507 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10945507)
- not_that_scott 11y ago
  So, you're refusing to discuss their claim, on the grounds that they previously made claims that you would also refuse discuss? Now this is a fun little recursion puzzle.
  - calibraxis 11y ago
    Why? It's a non-sequitur. Neil Degrasse Tyson said "the natural world". IQ tests are fleeting human-made constructs which have nothing to do with laws of the universe. And to talk of "scientific consensus" regarding social pseudo-science... The whole point is to attack Blacks using techniques of so-called "scientific racism". (And not discussing racist pseudo-science is merely protection of your own intelligence. My brief neglect to cite evidence warned me that exposure to low standards made my own slip! :)
    - dang 11y ago
      Your account has also taken a wrong turn into using this site exclusively for ideological ranting. We haven't banned you because I don't think you're doing it on purpose, but please stop doing it. It's really tedious. The enemies who blast this stuff at each other resemble no one so much as each other. Meanwhile the rest of us just want to get away from it. It isn't productive, and it spoils HN for things that are actually interesting, which spoils its whole purpose.
dang 11y ago
You've been using HN as a dumping ground for ideological boilerplate for a long time. That's an abuse of this site. We asked you to stop but you didn't, so we've banned this account. Inflammatory political arguments and talking points degrade this place, as the utter lameness of the current subthread makes clear. That isn't conversation; it's destructive of conversation. We want good conversation here. Good conversation is unpredictable and involves people listening to and respecting one another. That's what matters, not blasting people with predetermined rhetoric.