7 ms·

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 w

by 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/
  - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
    I'm sure all that is true and borne of experience. Sometimes I'm concerned when a topic is adjacent to serious issues of bias, and nobody is talking about it. We can get very comfortable not talking about issues that don't impact us. Using the R-word is often unfair, waters down the meaning of the word and provokes feelings of being wrongly viewed. But being the victim of bias can be worse than all that. If we err on the side of being alert to potential bias especially if we are not the victim, then maybe that's not unhealthy.

by Gunax 6y ago

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/
- JoeAltmaier 6y ago
  I'm sure all that is true and borne of experience. Sometimes I'm concerned when a topic is adjacent to serious issues of bias, and nobody is talking about it. We can get very comfortable not talking about issues that don't impact us. Using the R-word is often unfair, waters down the meaning of the word and provokes feelings of being wrongly viewed. But being the victim of bias can be worse than all that. If we err on the side of being alert to potential bias especially if we are not the victim, then maybe that's not unhealthy.