5 ms·

He made a claim, but he didn’t actually share any of his research or data.

skinkestek 6y ago
I'm fairly certain he can stand for it. Also, tptacek is fairly far to the left it seems (in an American context) so it actually surprised me quite a bit that he'd write that. Based on that last observation I think most of us can agree, can't we?
- erichocean 6y ago
  > Based on that last observation I think most of us can agree, can't we? HN is in a weird place today, very similar to where the Slate Star Codex guy was a few years ago. That is, racist Whites seem to feel safe commenting here (with appropriate dog whistles and what not), but you wonder how long that can last… In the end, the SSC guy banned more and more commenters but it wasn't sufficient to save him and he ended up deleting his blog [0] when the world turned its eyes to the kinds of discussions he allowed. I expect the same to happen with HN. dang does a good job keeping people on-message politically (and I'm sure tptacek did as well), but being "racist-adjacent"—which HN absolutely is [1]—isn't a long-term viable position. Someday soon I expect the racist-adjacent user-banning to kick into high gear on HN (like SSC did) but it will be too little, too late. Eventually, HN will inevitably shut down—and it might be sooner than any of us think. [0] https://slatestarcodex.com/ https://slatestarcodex.com/ [1] This is from an hour ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23683033 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23683033
  - lliamander 6y ago
    > In the end, the SSC guy banned more and more commenters but it wasn't sufficient to save him and he ended up deleting his blog when the world turned its eyes to the kinds of discussions he allowed. That isn't why he deleted it. He deleted it because the NYT was threatening to publish his real name in a way that would make it untenable for him to continue to practice psychiatry. > [1] This is from an hour ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23683033 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23683033 To reduce criticism of SPLC to "racism" isn't helping the health of discourse here.
    - user982 6y ago
      > To reduce criticism of SPLC to "racism" isn't helping the health of discourse here. "The SPLC is a hate group" is considered healthy, valid criticism to you, coming from an account which then said that "hate speech against white people has been normalized in our society for some time now" and linked to The Bell Curve as proof for the superiority of the white race, but referring to them as "racist-adjacent" is unacceptably reductionist?
      - lliamander 6y ago
        The comment "The SPLC is a hate group" is not racist. Even if the person who said it is otherwise racist, it's entirely possible for racists to say things that aren't racist. Whatever "racist-adjacent" means, clearly it must mean "not actually racist" because if it was racist, I'm sure you would call that.
        TomSwirly 6y ago
        An outspoken racist falsely attacks one of the great legal defenders of Blacks in America and your argument is, "it's entirely possible for racists to say things that aren't racist." I'm doubtful you will convince anyone with that argument: perhaps not even yourself.
        lliamander 6y ago
        My argument is that I don't think the user's other comments are relevant to the question of whether the statement is racist. Now, if you think the statement "the SPLC is a hate group" is false that's fine. I think there is a debate that is worth having here on HN - especially when tech companies are using the SPLC's hate list to justify their deplatforming decisions. In my opinion, the SPLC's use of defamation and fear-mongering for profit make the statement perfectly justified. Calling it "racist" or "racist-adjacent" is a rhetorical attack that does not serve the purpose of mutual enlightenment. "Racist-adjacent" strikes me as particularly insidious since implicit in that label is the admission that the thing being labeled is not actually racist.
  - chrisdirkis 6y ago
    > In the end, the SSC guy banned more and more commenters but it wasn't sufficient to save him and he ended up deleting his blog [0] when the world turned its eyes to the kinds of discussions he allowed. I expect the same to happen with HN. That's... not what happened? He's explicitly stated that he deleted his blog due to the fact that the NYT are planning on doxxing him in a story about SSC. He's fine with the story itself, and the attention garnered, but does not want his name attached to it and announced to the world via one of America's most popular newspapers due to his work as a psychiatrist. As far as I'm aware, this is not because SSC contains comments about right wing views or anything, but more due to an intent to maintain his privacy to his patients, which he believes will improve their quality of care. If you think I'm incorrect in the above interpretation, feel free to disagree.
    - erichocean 6y ago
      I do disagree, there was a lot of discussion about this on SSC prior to Scott shutting it down. If you just read what's on the site now, you're missing most of the important background information. In particular, the "reporter" at the NYT was clearly looking to get SSC cancelled, so Scott self-cancelled before that could happen, on his own terms. I'm ambivalent about his decision, but it was definitely his to make and probably is in the best interest of his patients (and himself)—at least in the short-term. The world, however, has lost a really good blog and community.
      - chrisdirkis 6y ago
        I've read SSC for a while now, and check in with the community every so often. Before the takedown, there was talk about the reporter writing an article, with the general consensus being "nervous but optimistic". I'd love to see clear evidence about the reporter clearly looking to get Scott cancelled. The scare quotes on "reporter" are unnecessary. I'm sad that the blog is down. "Categories are for man" is an essay/lens that I find very valuable. I hope the situation resolves with the blog being up and the NYT not doxxing Scott.
        lliamander 6y ago
  - paulchap 6y ago
    Linking to one flagged comment from a green account doesn't really support your position that the entire community is "racist-adjacent". Neither does linking to a blog post that claims Scott shut SSC down to protect his patients support your position that he did it to evade justice.
    - pyrale 6y ago
      It is never the entire community. In situations where this kind of drifts occur, most of the group are usually people with little knowledge about activist dynamics and unwilling to consider that people they know/trust may adhere to or have done things they consider abhorrent. Therefore, they tend do be blindsided about stuff that, in hindsight, was obvious. This is likely why above poster says "racist-adjacent" and not racist-friendly. I have no particular opinion on HN, but I have noticed that the tech community in general is usually not the most politics-aware group. This makes us pretty vulnerable to this kind of behaviour.
- baddox 6y ago
  I don't agree that the validity of his claim depends in any way on his character, reputation, or personal political views. The validity of a claim is independent of any attribute of the person making the claim. The only way to make any judgment about the claim is to see the data and methodology.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Also, tptacek is fairly far to the left it seems While in the modern US there is a common (and increasingly strong) correlation on average between political attitudes toward race and gender and the left/right economic axis, there is nothing strongly inherent about that. Racism and sexism on the left are not at all unheard of. (I don't see any evidence that tptacek is a racist or sexist, I just don't think “hey, he's left-of-American-center, so if he says HN is clear of racism/sexism, it must be the case” is even approximately a reasonable position.) But, in any case, his own description seems to repeatedly focus on explicit misogynistic or white supremacists content, so even were we to take it as gospel it is perfectly consistent with HN being filled with the kind of urbane circumlocution that is frequently used to provide a thin veneer of not-all-that-plausible-in-aggregate deniability over bigoted attitudes.

I'm fairly certain he can stand for it. Also, tptacek is fairly far to the left it seems (in an American context) so it actually surprised me quite a bit that he'd write that. Based on that last observation I think most of us can agree, can't we?

erichocean 6y ago
> Based on that last observation I think most of us can agree, can't we? HN is in a weird place today, very similar to where the Slate Star Codex guy was a few years ago. That is, racist Whites seem to feel safe commenting here (with appropriate dog whistles and what not), but you wonder how long that can last… In the end, the SSC guy banned more and more commenters but it wasn't sufficient to save him and he ended up deleting his blog [0] when the world turned its eyes to the kinds of discussions he allowed. I expect the same to happen with HN. dang does a good job keeping people on-message politically (and I'm sure tptacek did as well), but being "racist-adjacent"—which HN absolutely is [1]—isn't a long-term viable position. Someday soon I expect the racist-adjacent user-banning to kick into high gear on HN (like SSC did) but it will be too little, too late. Eventually, HN will inevitably shut down—and it might be sooner than any of us think. [0] https://slatestarcodex.com/ https://slatestarcodex.com/ [1] This is from an hour ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23683033 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23683033
- lliamander 6y ago
  > In the end, the SSC guy banned more and more commenters but it wasn't sufficient to save him and he ended up deleting his blog when the world turned its eyes to the kinds of discussions he allowed. That isn't why he deleted it. He deleted it because the NYT was threatening to publish his real name in a way that would make it untenable for him to continue to practice psychiatry. > [1] This is from an hour ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23683033 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23683033 To reduce criticism of SPLC to "racism" isn't helping the health of discourse here.
  - user982 6y ago
    > To reduce criticism of SPLC to "racism" isn't helping the health of discourse here. "The SPLC is a hate group" is considered healthy, valid criticism to you, coming from an account which then said that "hate speech against white people has been normalized in our society for some time now" and linked to The Bell Curve as proof for the superiority of the white race, but referring to them as "racist-adjacent" is unacceptably reductionist?
    - lliamander 6y ago
      The comment "The SPLC is a hate group" is not racist. Even if the person who said it is otherwise racist, it's entirely possible for racists to say things that aren't racist. Whatever "racist-adjacent" means, clearly it must mean "not actually racist" because if it was racist, I'm sure you would call that.
      - TomSwirly 6y ago
        An outspoken racist falsely attacks one of the great legal defenders of Blacks in America and your argument is, "it's entirely possible for racists to say things that aren't racist." I'm doubtful you will convince anyone with that argument: perhaps not even yourself.
        lliamander 6y ago
        My argument is that I don't think the user's other comments are relevant to the question of whether the statement is racist. Now, if you think the statement "the SPLC is a hate group" is false that's fine. I think there is a debate that is worth having here on HN - especially when tech companies are using the SPLC's hate list to justify their deplatforming decisions. In my opinion, the SPLC's use of defamation and fear-mongering for profit make the statement perfectly justified. Calling it "racist" or "racist-adjacent" is a rhetorical attack that does not serve the purpose of mutual enlightenment. "Racist-adjacent" strikes me as particularly insidious since implicit in that label is the admission that the thing being labeled is not actually racist.
- chrisdirkis 6y ago
  > In the end, the SSC guy banned more and more commenters but it wasn't sufficient to save him and he ended up deleting his blog [0] when the world turned its eyes to the kinds of discussions he allowed. I expect the same to happen with HN. That's... not what happened? He's explicitly stated that he deleted his blog due to the fact that the NYT are planning on doxxing him in a story about SSC. He's fine with the story itself, and the attention garnered, but does not want his name attached to it and announced to the world via one of America's most popular newspapers due to his work as a psychiatrist. As far as I'm aware, this is not because SSC contains comments about right wing views or anything, but more due to an intent to maintain his privacy to his patients, which he believes will improve their quality of care. If you think I'm incorrect in the above interpretation, feel free to disagree.
  - erichocean 6y ago
    I do disagree, there was a lot of discussion about this on SSC prior to Scott shutting it down. If you just read what's on the site now, you're missing most of the important background information. In particular, the "reporter" at the NYT was clearly looking to get SSC cancelled, so Scott self-cancelled before that could happen, on his own terms. I'm ambivalent about his decision, but it was definitely his to make and probably is in the best interest of his patients (and himself)—at least in the short-term. The world, however, has lost a really good blog and community.
    - chrisdirkis 6y ago
      I've read SSC for a while now, and check in with the community every so often. Before the takedown, there was talk about the reporter writing an article, with the general consensus being "nervous but optimistic". I'd love to see clear evidence about the reporter clearly looking to get Scott cancelled. The scare quotes on "reporter" are unnecessary. I'm sad that the blog is down. "Categories are for man" is an essay/lens that I find very valuable. I hope the situation resolves with the blog being up and the NYT not doxxing Scott.
      - lliamander 6y ago
- paulchap 6y ago
  Linking to one flagged comment from a green account doesn't really support your position that the entire community is "racist-adjacent". Neither does linking to a blog post that claims Scott shut SSC down to protect his patients support your position that he did it to evade justice.
  - pyrale 6y ago
    It is never the entire community. In situations where this kind of drifts occur, most of the group are usually people with little knowledge about activist dynamics and unwilling to consider that people they know/trust may adhere to or have done things they consider abhorrent. Therefore, they tend do be blindsided about stuff that, in hindsight, was obvious. This is likely why above poster says "racist-adjacent" and not racist-friendly. I have no particular opinion on HN, but I have noticed that the tech community in general is usually not the most politics-aware group. This makes us pretty vulnerable to this kind of behaviour.
baddox 6y ago
I don't agree that the validity of his claim depends in any way on his character, reputation, or personal political views. The validity of a claim is independent of any attribute of the person making the claim. The only way to make any judgment about the claim is to see the data and methodology.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Also, tptacek is fairly far to the left it seems While in the modern US there is a common (and increasingly strong) correlation on average between political attitudes toward race and gender and the left/right economic axis, there is nothing strongly inherent about that. Racism and sexism on the left are not at all unheard of. (I don't see any evidence that tptacek is a racist or sexist, I just don't think “hey, he's left-of-American-center, so if he says HN is clear of racism/sexism, it must be the case” is even approximately a reasonable position.) But, in any case, his own description seems to repeatedly focus on explicit misogynistic or white supremacists content, so even were we to take it as gospel it is perfectly consistent with HN being filled with the kind of urbane circumlocution that is frequently used to provide a thin veneer of not-all-that-plausible-in-aggregate deniability over bigoted attitudes.