8 ms·

Did you look at the references at the other end of that link? It seems like you are equating rejecting papers like that, with denying white supremacy. Would i

by zepto 6y ago

Did you look at the references at the other end of that link? It seems like you are equating rejecting papers like that, with denying white supremacy. Would it be possible for someone to think that particular kind of academic work is of low value, and yet still think white supremacy is real?

throwaway2245 6y ago
The informative question is the converse: Would your hypothetical someone append the word 'whiteness' to their primary example search illustrating bogus research?
- zepto 6y ago
  If some particular research they thought was bogus was about the concept of whiteness, why wouldn’t they?
  - pseudalopex 6y ago
    Because they could cite the particular research instead.
    - zepto 6y ago
      That doesn’t explain what’s wrong with using the search as an example if a person thinks there is a problem with the research which shows up for that search.
      - pseudalopex 6y ago
        The search has thousands of results. Tomorrow's top results could be entirely different. I've only seen 2 people say they read today's top result. They didn't see what was wrong with it.[1][2] And now he changed the search terms.[3] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25400495 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25400495 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25400289 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25400289 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25402638 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25402638
        zepto 6y ago
        Ok. So your view of what was wrong with it is that the search terms might change. And it seems like he has removed the word ‘whiteness’. Is he still ‘denying the existence of white supremacy’?
        pseudalopex 6y ago
        No. My view is probably he didn't read any of those papers. He has to know most of his audience won't. He has to know the search results could change too. So he was just sneering at the words. Changing the search terms is just more evidence he wasn't pointing to any particular research.
        zepto 6y ago
        It clear he wasn’t pointing at a particular paper. He was pointing at a general area. I think we agree on that. And ‘sneering’ doesn’t seem unrealistic, given that he used the word bogus. But the thread we are having this discussion on is about him ‘Denying the existence of white supremacy’. I don’t think anyone has said anything which justifies such a charge. I think one can easily accuse him of is intellectually immature behavior or narrow-mindedness. But not a lot more.
        throwaway2245 6y ago
        The link is deliberately suggesting that any research on race is bogus (and the edit uses another general keyword across a general search, which still deliberately suggests that). This suggests to me either: 1. you deny white supremacy exists - in my opinion, that's the more generous reading, or, 2. you acknowledge that it exists but wish to publicly state the view that it is not worth any research hours. That is itself white supremacy, plus the intent to cause harm. There is no credible third option. You suggest intellectual immaturity or narrow-mindedness (from someone with a PhD), but those would come in addition to either 1 or 2 applying, not instead of. Using childishness as an excuse for racism is still racism, especially if you are a grown adult. Your excusing this as just childishness is embarrassing.
geofft 6y ago
I looked at the references on the other end of the link. I expected it to be a particular article with all four of those words in the title. It was not; it was just a search for those four words. The top result is an article about the Swiss theologian Karl Barth (d. 1968), who was among other things one of the leaders of the theological opposition to the Third Reich and its subversion of Christian belief in service of white-supremacist ideology. The article says that Barth's interpretation of Romans 2 provides us a way today to avoid commingling Christian identity and whiteness. It's certainly possible for someone who believes white supremacy exists (and is worth opposing) to think that academic work that reads Barth today to counter racial superiority disguised as Christianity is of low value. I'd say it's pretty unlikely. To be fair, this is not the most charitable interpretation. The most charitable interpretation is that the author of the essay has never seriously read any academic work involving the words "hermeneutic," "dialectic," "hegemonic," or "whiteness" and they're just four words that he thinks mean nothing, and that he didn't actually read the results in the Google Scholar search before a middlebrow dismissal (to use his own term) of the results. That would make him like the vast majority of the folks who deny the existence of white supremacy - dismissing serious opposition to it as silly instead of specifically disbelieving it.
- pseudalopex 6y ago
  It's worth mentioning Paul Graham has a degree in philosophy. He should know what hermeneutic and dialectic mean.
  - geofft 6y ago
    By the way, he has now silently changed the link to remove "whiteness" and add "racialized" and "phenomenology," which I guess confirms - no, he did not read the results and had no specific academic work in mind, he just listed some words he didn't like - he still doesn't like words about the academic study of race - he somehow didn't learn the meaning of "phenomenology" in his Ivy-League philosophy degree, either

by zepto 6y ago

throwaway2245 6y ago

The informative question is the converse: Would your hypothetical someone append the word 'whiteness' to their primary example search illustrating bogus research?

zepto 6y ago
If some particular research they thought was bogus was about the concept of whiteness, why wouldn’t they?
- pseudalopex 6y ago
  Because they could cite the particular research instead.
  - zepto 6y ago
    That doesn’t explain what’s wrong with using the search as an example if a person thinks there is a problem with the research which shows up for that search.
    - pseudalopex 6y ago
      The search has thousands of results. Tomorrow's top results could be entirely different. I've only seen 2 people say they read today's top result. They didn't see what was wrong with it.[1][2] And now he changed the search terms.[3] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25400495 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25400495 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25400289 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25400289 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25402638 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25402638
      - zepto 6y ago
        Ok. So your view of what was wrong with it is that the search terms might change. And it seems like he has removed the word ‘whiteness’. Is he still ‘denying the existence of white supremacy’?
        pseudalopex 6y ago
        No. My view is probably he didn't read any of those papers. He has to know most of his audience won't. He has to know the search results could change too. So he was just sneering at the words. Changing the search terms is just more evidence he wasn't pointing to any particular research.
        zepto 6y ago
        It clear he wasn’t pointing at a particular paper. He was pointing at a general area. I think we agree on that. And ‘sneering’ doesn’t seem unrealistic, given that he used the word bogus. But the thread we are having this discussion on is about him ‘Denying the existence of white supremacy’. I don’t think anyone has said anything which justifies such a charge. I think one can easily accuse him of is intellectually immature behavior or narrow-mindedness. But not a lot more.
        throwaway2245 6y ago
        The link is deliberately suggesting that any research on race is bogus (and the edit uses another general keyword across a general search, which still deliberately suggests that). This suggests to me either: 1. you deny white supremacy exists - in my opinion, that's the more generous reading, or, 2. you acknowledge that it exists but wish to publicly state the view that it is not worth any research hours. That is itself white supremacy, plus the intent to cause harm. There is no credible third option. You suggest intellectual immaturity or narrow-mindedness (from someone with a PhD), but those would come in addition to either 1 or 2 applying, not instead of. Using childishness as an excuse for racism is still racism, especially if you are a grown adult. Your excusing this as just childishness is embarrassing.

geofft 6y ago

I looked at the references on the other end of the link. I expected it to be a particular article with all four of those words in the title. It was not; it was just a search for those four words. The top result is an article about the Swiss theologian Karl Barth (d. 1968), who was among other things one of the leaders of the theological opposition to the Third Reich and its subversion of Christian belief in service of white-supremacist ideology. The article says that Barth's interpretation of Romans 2 provides us a way today to avoid commingling Christian identity and whiteness. It's certainly possible for someone who believes white supremacy exists (and is worth opposing) to think that academic work that reads Barth today to counter racial superiority disguised as Christianity is of low value. I'd say it's pretty unlikely. To be fair, this is not the most charitable interpretation. The most charitable interpretation is that the author of the essay has never seriously read any academic work involving the words "hermeneutic," "dialectic," "hegemonic," or "whiteness" and they're just four words that he thinks mean nothing, and that he didn't actually read the results in the Google Scholar search before a middlebrow dismissal (to use his own term) of the results. That would make him like the vast majority of the folks who deny the existence of white supremacy - dismissing serious opposition to it as silly instead of specifically disbelieving it.

pseudalopex 6y ago
It's worth mentioning Paul Graham has a degree in philosophy. He should know what hermeneutic and dialectic mean.
- geofft 6y ago
  By the way, he has now silently changed the link to remove "whiteness" and add "racialized" and "phenomenology," which I guess confirms - no, he did not read the results and had no specific academic work in mind, he just listed some words he didn't like - he still doesn't like words about the academic study of race - he somehow didn't learn the meaning of "phenomenology" in his Ivy-League philosophy degree, either