5 ms·

The article claims the nytimes story is like this: > Scott Alexander’s blog is popular with some influential Silicon Valley people. > Scott Alexander has done

by jmull 6y ago

The article claims the nytimes story is like this: > Scott Alexander’s blog is popular with some influential Silicon Valley people. > Scott Alexander has done posts that espouse views on race or gender that progressives disapprove of. > THEREFORE, Silicon Valley is a hotbed of racism and sexism. But this just isn't accurate. The first sentence is right. The second is part of the profile (though not the entire point). And the stated conclusion is not in the article at all. I hadn't noticed "rationalists" of this particular type before today. I'm not impressed. This part is pretty bad: > Metz is very interested to paint Alexander as racist, by writing for example that “in one post, he aligned himself with Charles Murray, who proposed a link between race and I.Q. in ‘The Bell Curve.’” Metz doesn't call Alexander a racist. The author feels Metz paints Alexander as a racist simply by raising an association with well known accused racist Charles Murray. Yet... if that inference is generally clear, then why did Alexander choose to make a point about UBI by associating himself with Charles Murray? My guess is the author feels attacked by the nytimes (or maybe the "tribe" the nytimes belongs to) and is fighting back (Fighting a little dirty, too, since it seems to be portraying the story inaccurately.)

PragmaticPulp 6y ago
The self-described rationalist community made their mind up about the article long before it was published, or even written. I think you’re right that the rationalist communities feel like they need to defend themselves and fight back, while refusing to even consider anything that could be viewed as criticism of their community. The modern self-described rationalist communities feel more like a place for people who have built their personal identities around the idea of being intellectual non-conformists than for people who genuinely want to discuss topics from different perspectives.
mimikatz 6y ago
The article is worse than you are portraying it. They go out and tie Murray to Alexander then in the next sentence remind the reader Murray is a racist. "In one post, he aligned himself with Charles Murray, who proposed a link between race and I.Q. in “The Bell Curve.” In another, he pointed out that Mr. Murray believes Black people “are genetically less intelligent than white people.”" You say "Metz doesn't call Alexander a racist", but that sentence is clearly trying to get his readers to think that.
- mola 6y ago
  There are many proponents of basic income, why choose a known racist? Probably not because you are racist. I'd wager it is because you are a troll out to illicit heated responses and get more attention. And I'm not sure it's done knowingly or rationally.
  - pseudalopex 6y ago
    "Even though I like both basic income guarantees and eugenics, I don’t think these are two things that go well together – making the income conditional upon sterilization is a little too close to coercion for my purposes. Still, probably better than what we have right now."[1] [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20200228054021/https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/12/08/a-something-sort-of-like-left-libertarianism-ist-manifesto/#comment-23688 https://web.archive.org/web/20200228054021/https://slatestar...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
ping_pong 6y ago
> why did Alexander choose to make a point about UBI by associating himself with Charles Murray You didn't read the article, yet you want to infer the reason why Alexander did something? If you actually read the article, he chose Murray because his opinon it fit a particular quadrant in a box chart, namely the "Pessmistic Cooperative" view on poverty. He also "associated" himself in that same diagram with Bernie Sanders, Lenin and School Lunches. I hope you take this as a learning experience. Please read the article before jumping to conclusions.
- jmull 6y ago
  You're just ignoring my question and raising various irrelevancies. > I hope you take this as a learning experience. Frankly, I think I'm learning to not bother to engage "rationalists" on the internet.
  - ping_pong 6y ago
    I did answer your question. You completely ignored what I wrote, maybe because you don't like being proven wrong. I'm not sure if you are implying that I'm a "rationalist", but if you are, you're jumping to conclusions again. You have a glaring habit of making pretty bad assumptions and I really hope you change yourself. It's a very bad trait that appears to be pretty common in your responses. I've never heard of this blog before this article or even rationalism, but your question made me curious about why he chose to refer to Murray. But instead of just jumping to conclusions and assuming things like you, I actually bothered to read the article. This is something you didn't do. Honestly, you should learn from this.
    - jmull 6y ago
      Well, I assure you, you’re missing my point. I guess if you’re interested, go back, read it again, and think about it in relation to the article. If not, that’s cool too.

by jmull 6y ago

PragmaticPulp 6y ago

The self-described rationalist community made their mind up about the article long before it was published, or even written. I think you’re right that the rationalist communities feel like they need to defend themselves and fight back, while refusing to even consider anything that could be viewed as criticism of their community. The modern self-described rationalist communities feel more like a place for people who have built their personal identities around the idea of being intellectual non-conformists than for people who genuinely want to discuss topics from different perspectives.

mimikatz 6y ago

The article is worse than you are portraying it. They go out and tie Murray to Alexander then in the next sentence remind the reader Murray is a racist. "In one post, he aligned himself with Charles Murray, who proposed a link between race and I.Q. in “The Bell Curve.” In another, he pointed out that Mr. Murray believes Black people “are genetically less intelligent than white people.”" You say "Metz doesn't call Alexander a racist", but that sentence is clearly trying to get his readers to think that.

mola 6y ago
There are many proponents of basic income, why choose a known racist? Probably not because you are racist. I'd wager it is because you are a troll out to illicit heated responses and get more attention. And I'm not sure it's done knowingly or rationally.
- pseudalopex 6y ago
  "Even though I like both basic income guarantees and eugenics, I don’t think these are two things that go well together – making the income conditional upon sterilization is a little too close to coercion for my purposes. Still, probably better than what we have right now."[1] [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20200228054021/https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/12/08/a-something-sort-of-like-left-libertarianism-ist-manifesto/#comment-23688 https://web.archive.org/web/20200228054021/https://slatestar...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

ping_pong 6y ago

> why did Alexander choose to make a point about UBI by associating himself with Charles Murray You didn't read the article, yet you want to infer the reason why Alexander did something? If you actually read the article, he chose Murray because his opinon it fit a particular quadrant in a box chart, namely the "Pessmistic Cooperative" view on poverty. He also "associated" himself in that same diagram with Bernie Sanders, Lenin and School Lunches. I hope you take this as a learning experience. Please read the article before jumping to conclusions.

jmull 6y ago
You're just ignoring my question and raising various irrelevancies. > I hope you take this as a learning experience. Frankly, I think I'm learning to not bother to engage "rationalists" on the internet.
- ping_pong 6y ago
  I did answer your question. You completely ignored what I wrote, maybe because you don't like being proven wrong. I'm not sure if you are implying that I'm a "rationalist", but if you are, you're jumping to conclusions again. You have a glaring habit of making pretty bad assumptions and I really hope you change yourself. It's a very bad trait that appears to be pretty common in your responses. I've never heard of this blog before this article or even rationalism, but your question made me curious about why he chose to refer to Murray. But instead of just jumping to conclusions and assuming things like you, I actually bothered to read the article. This is something you didn't do. Honestly, you should learn from this.
  - jmull 6y ago
    Well, I assure you, you’re missing my point. I guess if you’re interested, go back, read it again, and think about it in relation to the article. If not, that’s cool too.