6 ms·

> When people refer to racist views at SSC they don't mean that literally as a rule, they're just disparaging uncomfortable views about very well defined issues

> When people refer to racist views at SSC they don't mean that literally as a rule, they're just disparaging uncomfortable views about very well defined issues in social science and the like, that have zilch to do with superiority or supremacism of any sort, naziism etc. Shooting the messenger, basically. Do please specify what those "uncomfortable views" actually are.

zozbot234 6y ago
The one that comes up the most, relating to 'race' specifically. is opposition to the claim that the comparatively low numbers of BIPOC minority folks in high-skill industries (such as 'tech') are indicative of a systemic racist bias within those industries. The broad consensus among SSC commenters is that this is a pipeline problem, and that concerns should thus be directed earlier in the pipeline. People do disagree, even vocally at times, about what the actual problem is and how to best address it. Some observers have used this to argue that SSC commenters hold racist views towards BIPOC minorities. Obviously, this is not really the case. There are other cases where prevailing narratives of systemic racism towards BIPOC folks were examined in careful and nuanced ways, generally with interesting, even compelling results. Unfortunately, some people don't like it when their simplistic views are challenged in such a way.
- DagAgren 6y ago
  I'm getting the feeling you may not be presenting the discussion or the reactions to it entirely honestly here.
  - zozbot234 6y ago
    I sympathize. For whatever reason, many people take any sort of nuanced, academically-formal discussion about highly contentious topics involving politics, society, etc. as prima facie evidence of dishonesty. This peculiar sort of naïve anti-intellectualism is actually quite common across the culture-wars spectrum. I'm not saying that this is what you're doing here: I'm saying that this alone is reason to be highly skeptical wrt. the prevailing rumors within the 'left' about people on SSC being horribly bigoted, racist etc.
    - jahaja 6y ago
      I cannot stand the smug "we're objective academics that base our beliefs on nuanced logic and facts" of, to add insult to injury, self-declared "rationalists". That most are seemingly demographically and politically homogeneous are just the weirdest coincidence. Dogwhistling doesn't stop being so just because you wrap it in an overly verbose academic sounding language. I think it's time for some introspection if this is all it takes for mainly young privileged [white] men to start considering race science and the likes as unfortunate but actually true. Exactly the same thing can be seen with figures like Jordan B Peterson.
      - zozbot234 6y ago
        Factual and useful observations don't stop being factual and useful just because some people might seek to exploit them as dogwhistling signals. If you've got a problem with malicious dogwhistling, deterring people from exploring these issues is exactly the wrong response. You want to do the opposite, so that honest, careful, nuanced inquiry drowns out any attempt at subverting the discussion. (For instance, it was historically common to see expressions of concern about e.g. monopolistic industry and large business, damage to the environment, mass poverty etc. being used as dogwhistles obliquely referencing socialist views about the purported inherent evils of capitalism and the market economy, contrasted with bureaucratic central planning and control of the means of production. You don't see this to anything near the same extent nowadays, because most people who talk about these things are factually addressing the issues - often from a broad 'centrist/neoliberal' POV - not dogwhistling about unrelated stuff. So this can actually work.) > That most are seemingly demographically and politically homogeneous are just the weirdest coincidence. Demographically homogenous, yes this is a real issue that SSC folks are quite aware of. But it's also an issue about political discourse in general, not merely its awowedly-rationalist subset. Politically homogenous, not really. The whole reason debate was so vigorous within SSC was its lack of that kind of homogeneity.
        jahaja 6y ago
        > You want to do the opposite, so that honest, careful, nuanced inquiry drowns out any attempt at subverting the discussion. The problem with this crowd's writings is that they are overly verbose and unnecessary lengthy in some sort of war of attrition. And as the saying goes, it takes 10x more time to refute bullshit than to produce it. > Politically homogenous, not really. Just a quick very unscientific glance at twitter regarding this "attack" produces 10 right-wing types for every 1 centre-right, 0 remotely left. Even worse if we use the EU left-right spectrum. Being right or hard-right is not politically diverse even though this crowd seems to believe so.

zozbot234 6y ago

The one that comes up the most, relating to 'race' specifically. is opposition to the claim that the comparatively low numbers of BIPOC minority folks in high-skill industries (such as 'tech') are indicative of a systemic racist bias within those industries. The broad consensus among SSC commenters is that this is a pipeline problem, and that concerns should thus be directed earlier in the pipeline. People do disagree, even vocally at times, about what the actual problem is and how to best address it. Some observers have used this to argue that SSC commenters hold racist views towards BIPOC minorities. Obviously, this is not really the case. There are other cases where prevailing narratives of systemic racism towards BIPOC folks were examined in careful and nuanced ways, generally with interesting, even compelling results. Unfortunately, some people don't like it when their simplistic views are challenged in such a way.

DagAgren 6y ago
I'm getting the feeling you may not be presenting the discussion or the reactions to it entirely honestly here.
- zozbot234 6y ago
  I sympathize. For whatever reason, many people take any sort of nuanced, academically-formal discussion about highly contentious topics involving politics, society, etc. as prima facie evidence of dishonesty. This peculiar sort of naïve anti-intellectualism is actually quite common across the culture-wars spectrum. I'm not saying that this is what you're doing here: I'm saying that this alone is reason to be highly skeptical wrt. the prevailing rumors within the 'left' about people on SSC being horribly bigoted, racist etc.
  - jahaja 6y ago
    I cannot stand the smug "we're objective academics that base our beliefs on nuanced logic and facts" of, to add insult to injury, self-declared "rationalists". That most are seemingly demographically and politically homogeneous are just the weirdest coincidence. Dogwhistling doesn't stop being so just because you wrap it in an overly verbose academic sounding language. I think it's time for some introspection if this is all it takes for mainly young privileged [white] men to start considering race science and the likes as unfortunate but actually true. Exactly the same thing can be seen with figures like Jordan B Peterson.
    - zozbot234 6y ago
      Factual and useful observations don't stop being factual and useful just because some people might seek to exploit them as dogwhistling signals. If you've got a problem with malicious dogwhistling, deterring people from exploring these issues is exactly the wrong response. You want to do the opposite, so that honest, careful, nuanced inquiry drowns out any attempt at subverting the discussion. (For instance, it was historically common to see expressions of concern about e.g. monopolistic industry and large business, damage to the environment, mass poverty etc. being used as dogwhistles obliquely referencing socialist views about the purported inherent evils of capitalism and the market economy, contrasted with bureaucratic central planning and control of the means of production. You don't see this to anything near the same extent nowadays, because most people who talk about these things are factually addressing the issues - often from a broad 'centrist/neoliberal' POV - not dogwhistling about unrelated stuff. So this can actually work.) > That most are seemingly demographically and politically homogeneous are just the weirdest coincidence. Demographically homogenous, yes this is a real issue that SSC folks are quite aware of. But it's also an issue about political discourse in general, not merely its awowedly-rationalist subset. Politically homogenous, not really. The whole reason debate was so vigorous within SSC was its lack of that kind of homogeneity.
      - jahaja 6y ago
        > You want to do the opposite, so that honest, careful, nuanced inquiry drowns out any attempt at subverting the discussion. The problem with this crowd's writings is that they are overly verbose and unnecessary lengthy in some sort of war of attrition. And as the saying goes, it takes 10x more time to refute bullshit than to produce it. > Politically homogenous, not really. Just a quick very unscientific glance at twitter regarding this "attack" produces 10 right-wing types for every 1 centre-right, 0 remotely left. Even worse if we use the EU left-right spectrum. Being right or hard-right is not politically diverse even though this crowd seems to believe so.