4 ms·

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

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.
        zepto 6y ago
        “The link is deliberately suggesting that any research on race is bogus“ If this statement were true, then would be merit to your conclusions. However it’s obviously not true. The link clearly does suggest that the kinds of academic paper that search yields are bogus. The original search was for “hermeneutic” “dialectics” “hegemonic” “intersectionality” “whiteness” (as best I can reconstruct). This is quite obviously not a search for ‘any research on race’. Indeed it is clearly a search for a very narrow kind of academic writing on ‘whiteness’, which itself is a term only used in a subset of academic theorizing about race. Most kinds of research on race do not include these search terms. Obviously PG does think this narrow subfield is bogus. It’s puzzling that you have concluded that this means he thinks that ‘any’ research on race is bogus. The best way I can made sense of this is to figure that you think that any criticism of academic writing about race is equivalent to denying white supremacy.

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.
        zepto 6y ago
        “The link is deliberately suggesting that any research on race is bogus“ If this statement were true, then would be merit to your conclusions. However it’s obviously not true. The link clearly does suggest that the kinds of academic paper that search yields are bogus. The original search was for “hermeneutic” “dialectics” “hegemonic” “intersectionality” “whiteness” (as best I can reconstruct). This is quite obviously not a search for ‘any research on race’. Indeed it is clearly a search for a very narrow kind of academic writing on ‘whiteness’, which itself is a term only used in a subset of academic theorizing about race. Most kinds of research on race do not include these search terms. Obviously PG does think this narrow subfield is bogus. It’s puzzling that you have concluded that this means he thinks that ‘any’ research on race is bogus. The best way I can made sense of this is to figure that you think that any criticism of academic writing about race is equivalent to denying white supremacy.