4 ms·

What did I write that's untrue?

strken 6y ago
It's possible to be unfair without ever actually lying. "Using the handle xirbeosbwo1234, <your name> posted on Hacker News, a forum where rich San Franciscan tech CEOs and thought leaders could talk about everything from the infamous Damore memo, to Trump advisor Peter Thiel, to race relations and the BLM movement. On an article from Reason magazine, a fiercely libertarian media outlet, he gleefully ventured opinions on monarchy and race realism. For him, the site was a space where the worst consequences he faced were downvotes and the disbelief of his equally pseudonymous peers."
- xirbeosbwo1234 6y ago
  "And <your name> criticized the Reason article, accused its author of dissembling, and called monarchists and race realists names." The NYT article is perfectly fair. It states that Scott Alexander has sharply criticized neoreactionaries, which is true. It states that he has been a frequent critic of so-called SJWs and has written about possible genetic causes of some of the racial and sexual inequities we see in society, which is also true. Those things are part of the story. You are the one trying to leave them out.
  - strken 6y ago
    No, I'm trying to leave out the part that implies he agrees with Charles Murray's edgy beliefs, on the basis that he doesn't.
dash2 6y ago
Well, maybe not untrue, but are they meaningful? The rationalist movement ' has curious connections with "race realists" and monarchists.' What counts as a curious connection? You've cited one person, Moldbug. It 'rarely survives contact with mainstream scholarship'? Theses survive, or don't survive, contact with scholarship. I don't know what it means to say that a movement doesn't.
- XorNot 6y ago
  It would be reasonable to say that a movement may not be all that interested in being critically studied if they've got a conclusion they like and want to keep it. Staying "at the fringes" and claiming oppression is a good way to avoid having to answer critical scrutiny, or react to new evidence. Once you start having scholars and other official positions in the hierarchy of discussion, you can't just ignore what you don't like any more.

It's possible to be unfair without ever actually lying. "Using the handle xirbeosbwo1234, <your name> posted on Hacker News, a forum where rich San Franciscan tech CEOs and thought leaders could talk about everything from the infamous Damore memo, to Trump advisor Peter Thiel, to race relations and the BLM movement. On an article from Reason magazine, a fiercely libertarian media outlet, he gleefully ventured opinions on monarchy and race realism. For him, the site was a space where the worst consequences he faced were downvotes and the disbelief of his equally pseudonymous peers."

xirbeosbwo1234 6y ago
"And <your name> criticized the Reason article, accused its author of dissembling, and called monarchists and race realists names." The NYT article is perfectly fair. It states that Scott Alexander has sharply criticized neoreactionaries, which is true. It states that he has been a frequent critic of so-called SJWs and has written about possible genetic causes of some of the racial and sexual inequities we see in society, which is also true. Those things are part of the story. You are the one trying to leave them out.
- strken 6y ago
  No, I'm trying to leave out the part that implies he agrees with Charles Murray's edgy beliefs, on the basis that he doesn't.

dash2 6y ago

Well, maybe not untrue, but are they meaningful? The rationalist movement ' has curious connections with "race realists" and monarchists.' What counts as a curious connection? You've cited one person, Moldbug. It 'rarely survives contact with mainstream scholarship'? Theses survive, or don't survive, contact with scholarship. I don't know what it means to say that a movement doesn't.

XorNot 6y ago
It would be reasonable to say that a movement may not be all that interested in being critically studied if they've got a conclusion they like and want to keep it. Staying "at the fringes" and claiming oppression is a good way to avoid having to answer critical scrutiny, or react to new evidence. Once you start having scholars and other official positions in the hierarchy of discussion, you can't just ignore what you don't like any more.