3 ms·

> I knew before reading the article this would be a defence of views which hold other lives to be worth less than the author (racism), because they felt the nee

> I knew before reading the article this would be a defence of views which hold other lives to be worth less than the author (racism), because they felt the need to be so abstract. Wait, which part of the article is doing this? The excerpt where Alexander argues that it's better to spend energy accumulating resources to donate to malaria prevention efforts than to spend energy going to BLM protests? That doesn't strike me as a view that "hold[s] other lives to be worth less than the author"?

zorked 6y ago
The money used to feed Alexander would also be better used as donation to malaria funds, but I don't think he would argue that he should starve to death as I am sure he believes he has a right to self-preservation. He's arguing against BLM's right for self-preservation though, clearly because he perceives them to not have the same rights as himself. And that's the most charitable point of view that I can possibly have on this incredibly racist point of view. I think what he actually meant was something far more racist.
- croissants 6y ago
  I see. I guess I parse his argument a little differently. I see the SSC argument as "I would like to spend 100 units of resource (time, money, etc) improving black lives. The line between (donating money to malaria prevention) and (black lives improved in Africa) is much clearer to me than the line between (donating money to/attending events organized by BLM) and (black lives improved in the USA). Therefore, I should spend my 100 units on malaria prevention." Maybe this is what you mean by "arguing against BLM's right for self-preservation": taken to its extreme, this argument says that all of the effort behind BLM should just pivot to malaria prevention. In that case, the argument does look racist, because it's taken all of the resources devoted to agitating for societal change and re-allocated them to narrower medical assistance that's unlikely to produce the same kind of societal change. I don't think SSC is arguing for a complete pivot in resource allocation. I think he's arguing that more, but not all, attention should be spent on malaria prevention, and he sees malaria prevention as ultimately contributing to more improvement of black lives. But now I think I understand your response better, because it is in the above sense possible to interpret his argument as saying BLM is not itself a worthy cause. But I don't read it that way.
Gunax 6y ago
I've heard about SSC's racism for years, but no one has ever been able to pinpoint anything written that's racist. Instead it's about a feeling. It has to do with with the general gist of what's written and not written. If you say you support freedom, the radical left says that's a dogwhistle for racism, since you really mean 'freedom to be racist'. If you advocate or discuss any problem other than racism, the radical left would say that you're really saying that racism is not the foremost issue in the world, and that's racist. If you appeal to mostly white men, the radical left says you're racist because you do not have outreach, or you don't represent minority voices. If you support free speech, you're racist since you're just dogwhistling support for racist speech. They will never say this of course, but it really has a lot more to do with image than concrete words or actions. Joe Rogan never did anything racist and has even endorsed Sanders--but he seems* like he could be racist at a glance (muscular, interested in hyper masculine activities, probably drives a pick-up truck) so therefore he is. I'm willing to consider that there is some racism in the blog, but after years of accusations and no proof, I am skeptical.
- JoeAltmaier 6y ago
  That sounds like a lot of strawmen at once, and hard to directly address. How about: if they're tone deaf about issues of race, then there's probably a reason. Could be just avoids the issue. Could be any number of other things, some of them pretty awful.
  - Gunax 6y ago
    I really don't want to strawman anything. I certainly welcome anyone to explain where the racism is. Part of the issue is that just asking 'where is the racism?' tends to gets responses that are--in summary--something like 'well if you don't see it, then you're just blind (if they are being charitable) or racist yourself'. I know what I wrote is going to be very controversial, but you have to remember this is a condensed feeling that took me years to realise. I saw this same conversation play out 100 times: --Someone post a link to SSC --someone else says 'oh that guy is so racist' --Then some poor fool asks 'wait, how is any of that racist?' That is: there isn't paragraph or argument that is racist per se, but instead a general gist. It's much more about what is not said than what is. Obviously we have a major communication problem here that I am not sure we can resolve. To some people, the rationalist community is so racist that they feel they shouldn't even have to explain why. If you cannot see it, you're being blind, racist, or as you mention: tone-deaf. To others, there isn't anything racist about it, and they are left confused about why discussions about Moloch and cost disease are racist. It's a bit meta, but I think this is a good example of Conflict versus disease https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/01/24/conflict-vs-mistake/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/01/24/conflict-vs-mistake/

zorked 6y ago

The money used to feed Alexander would also be better used as donation to malaria funds, but I don't think he would argue that he should starve to death as I am sure he believes he has a right to self-preservation. He's arguing against BLM's right for self-preservation though, clearly because he perceives them to not have the same rights as himself. And that's the most charitable point of view that I can possibly have on this incredibly racist point of view. I think what he actually meant was something far more racist.

croissants 6y ago
I see. I guess I parse his argument a little differently. I see the SSC argument as "I would like to spend 100 units of resource (time, money, etc) improving black lives. The line between (donating money to malaria prevention) and (black lives improved in Africa) is much clearer to me than the line between (donating money to/attending events organized by BLM) and (black lives improved in the USA). Therefore, I should spend my 100 units on malaria prevention." Maybe this is what you mean by "arguing against BLM's right for self-preservation": taken to its extreme, this argument says that all of the effort behind BLM should just pivot to malaria prevention. In that case, the argument does look racist, because it's taken all of the resources devoted to agitating for societal change and re-allocated them to narrower medical assistance that's unlikely to produce the same kind of societal change. I don't think SSC is arguing for a complete pivot in resource allocation. I think he's arguing that more, but not all, attention should be spent on malaria prevention, and he sees malaria prevention as ultimately contributing to more improvement of black lives. But now I think I understand your response better, because it is in the above sense possible to interpret his argument as saying BLM is not itself a worthy cause. But I don't read it that way.

Gunax 6y ago

I've heard about SSC's racism for years, but no one has ever been able to pinpoint anything written that's racist. Instead it's about a feeling. It has to do with with the general gist of what's written and not written. If you say you support freedom, the radical left says that's a dogwhistle for racism, since you really mean 'freedom to be racist'. If you advocate or discuss any problem other than racism, the radical left would say that you're really saying that racism is not the foremost issue in the world, and that's racist. If you appeal to mostly white men, the radical left says you're racist because you do not have outreach, or you don't represent minority voices. If you support free speech, you're racist since you're just dogwhistling support for racist speech. They will never say this of course, but it really has a lot more to do with image than concrete words or actions. Joe Rogan never did anything racist and has even endorsed Sanders--but he seems* like he could be racist at a glance (muscular, interested in hyper masculine activities, probably drives a pick-up truck) so therefore he is. I'm willing to consider that there is some racism in the blog, but after years of accusations and no proof, I am skeptical.

JoeAltmaier 6y ago
That sounds like a lot of strawmen at once, and hard to directly address. How about: if they're tone deaf about issues of race, then there's probably a reason. Could be just avoids the issue. Could be any number of other things, some of them pretty awful.
- Gunax 6y ago
  I really don't want to strawman anything. I certainly welcome anyone to explain where the racism is. Part of the issue is that just asking 'where is the racism?' tends to gets responses that are--in summary--something like 'well if you don't see it, then you're just blind (if they are being charitable) or racist yourself'. I know what I wrote is going to be very controversial, but you have to remember this is a condensed feeling that took me years to realise. I saw this same conversation play out 100 times: --Someone post a link to SSC --someone else says 'oh that guy is so racist' --Then some poor fool asks 'wait, how is any of that racist?' That is: there isn't paragraph or argument that is racist per se, but instead a general gist. It's much more about what is not said than what is. Obviously we have a major communication problem here that I am not sure we can resolve. To some people, the rationalist community is so racist that they feel they shouldn't even have to explain why. If you cannot see it, you're being blind, racist, or as you mention: tone-deaf. To others, there isn't anything racist about it, and they are left confused about why discussions about Moloch and cost disease are racist. It's a bit meta, but I think this is a good example of Conflict versus disease https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/01/24/conflict-vs-mistake/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/01/24/conflict-vs-mistake/