4 ms·

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 s

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.
        throwaway2245 6y ago
        > It’s puzzling that you have concluded that this means he thinks that ‘any’ research on race is bogus. So: any research on race is fine, but using the words 'whiteness', 'racialized' or now 'intersectionality' (this word appears newly to me) makes it bogus... Half of the results on Google Scholar which mention 'white supremacy' contain at least one of those three words, broadly consistently since 1990. How do you talk in any useful way about race relations without ever using those words? Awkwardly, in modern academia. - You can't now easily define what "white" means in your context (since this definition is not fixed or absolute), for example, so how can we understand the foundation of your work? - You don't now have a word for talking about how the experience of being a woman or disabled or gay etc is different (or not) for black people than it is for white people. - You don't now have a word for the experience of ethnic or cultural groups becoming discriminated against with political involvement. It's akin to saying research in computer science is fine, but the words 'algorithm', 'lisp', or 'big data' show it to be bogus.

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.
      - throwaway2245 6y ago
        > It’s puzzling that you have concluded that this means he thinks that ‘any’ research on race is bogus. So: any research on race is fine, but using the words 'whiteness', 'racialized' or now 'intersectionality' (this word appears newly to me) makes it bogus... Half of the results on Google Scholar which mention 'white supremacy' contain at least one of those three words, broadly consistently since 1990. How do you talk in any useful way about race relations without ever using those words? Awkwardly, in modern academia. - You can't now easily define what "white" means in your context (since this definition is not fixed or absolute), for example, so how can we understand the foundation of your work? - You don't now have a word for talking about how the experience of being a woman or disabled or gay etc is different (or not) for black people than it is for white people. - You don't now have a word for the experience of ethnic or cultural groups becoming discriminated against with political involvement. It's akin to saying research in computer science is fine, but the words 'algorithm', 'lisp', or 'big data' show it to be bogus.