5 ms·

It's worth keeping in mind that Minding the Campus is run by the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, a conservative-libertarian think tank. It's very "weir

It's worth keeping in mind that Minding the Campus is run by the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, a conservative-libertarian think tank. It's very "weird" how lately these proxy sites pushing socially conservative agendas that turn out to be run by conservative think tanks have been landing and languishing on the front page here

tgv 4y ago
If you take that approach, don't mind if everybody starts ignoring everything that might be related to an organization pushing an agenda. You're basically advocating that everyone stays in their own echo chamber, an anti-scientific attitude if there ever was one.
- vlz 4y ago
  That does not seem like a fair assessment. The OP said „it is worth keeping in mind“ not „ignore the article“. I think it is worth keeping in mind. The article still stands and the questions it raises against the current state of the authors field are still valid. Don‘t get drawn into thinking there are always just two sides.
  - nosianu 4y ago
    > The OP said „it is worth keeping in mind“ But nothing of substance, only innuendo. What does that particular phrase even mean? It stops before actually saying anything. > Don‘t get drawn into thinking there are always just two sides. Exactly what I mean. What is your point, when you actually apply it to the current blog post and discussion? Also, "always two sides" does not mean two sides worth spending equal amounts of time on. We've also had "two sides" for climate change and vaccines since forever, basically, for any topic you can find people with a different opinion. But knowing that alone is kind of useless. No, pointing to somebody's origin or affiliations alone does not provide any value. It can be - if you start from there and become more concrete with respect to the specific text we are looking at. Strangely enough, this kind of statement also is the exact opposite of what is the purported goals, e.g. being against "racism": Mere affiliation is seen as sufficient as an argument against somebody and all their work, without even the tiniest bit of effort at actually looking at what they have. I sure don't mind somebody pointing out such affiliations - but I would at the very least want to see at least a token effort of them looking at the evidence in front of them in form of the text being discussed.
  - tgv 4y ago
    My comment wasn't about being two-sided; it's more againts being single-sided. "Keep in mind" combined with "pushing agendas" means: you cannot trust the message, because it was written to manipulate you. It's guilt by association.
throwawayacc3 4y ago
"The narrative must be preserved! We can't have any wrongthink hit the front page!"
pjc50 4y ago
> It's very "weird" how lately these proxy sites pushing socially conservative agendas that turn out to be run by conservative think tanks have been landing and languishing on the front page here Culture war material is explicitly against the HN rules, so you can flag it with a clear conscience. I don't think many hackers know much about anthropology to start with, which is a shame.
- throwawayacc3 4y ago
  "Destroy the heretical content! Wrongthink apostasy should be banned! We must preserve the narrative!"
Beltalowda 4y ago
> It's very "weird" how lately these proxy sites pushing socially conservative agendas that turn out to be run by conservative think tanks have been landing and languishing on the front page here The issue is these sites are the only ones that will write about it at all, as many more left and centre publications avoid the topic so this is all we're left with. There is a cheat-code argument that prevents more centre-aligned people from writing about it: "it's {racist,harmful,transphobic,etc...} if you write about X". Sometimes, this is true, but usually it is asserted without any argument as an axiom. No one likes to defend themselves against accusations of racism; you've already lost if you're in that position. We should of course be having conversations about what exactly is racist, harmful, transphobic, etc. but these are not "conversations" and mere "accusations. If you go to the "right-wing outrage sites" – which this site doesn't seem to be by the way – you'll see a lot of outrage nonsense interspersed with actually some pretty decent stories (often badly written up, but good stories nonetheless) that no one else will report. Every ideology or "side" has its blind spots, something people seem to forgot at times. A group that doesn't allow self-criticism tends to become increasingly more anti-intellectual over time. The last time I took one of those "political spectrum tests" I was further to the left than Lenin. It's kind-of a bullshit test but it goes to show I'm not exactly on the right-hand side of the political spectrum. Yet, I've found it's become impossible to comment on platforms with a left-wing bias, as merely saying things such as "wait, I think I have a better idea to solve this social problem: [...] What do you think?" can quickly result in quite horrible accusations and insults being thrown your way. I don't understand this attitude; we agree about the problem, we just have different ideas about how to best solve it. How can you NOT be interested in a possible better way to solve what we both consider a serious problem? It is of course completely fine to disagree, but what I get is not "I disagree, because ...", it's "you need to shut the fuck up you rightoid!"
int_19h 4y ago
Thing is, they do have some valid points, even if they often end up buried in a heap of muck. E.g. I don't think that criticizing this is only possible from a conservative perspective: "In her work with the Nuxalk, Leischner decided not to record any of the interviews, so as not to continue the legacy of extraction."

tgv 4y ago

If you take that approach, don't mind if everybody starts ignoring everything that might be related to an organization pushing an agenda. You're basically advocating that everyone stays in their own echo chamber, an anti-scientific attitude if there ever was one.

vlz 4y ago
That does not seem like a fair assessment. The OP said „it is worth keeping in mind“ not „ignore the article“. I think it is worth keeping in mind. The article still stands and the questions it raises against the current state of the authors field are still valid. Don‘t get drawn into thinking there are always just two sides.
- nosianu 4y ago
  > The OP said „it is worth keeping in mind“ But nothing of substance, only innuendo. What does that particular phrase even mean? It stops before actually saying anything. > Don‘t get drawn into thinking there are always just two sides. Exactly what I mean. What is your point, when you actually apply it to the current blog post and discussion? Also, "always two sides" does not mean two sides worth spending equal amounts of time on. We've also had "two sides" for climate change and vaccines since forever, basically, for any topic you can find people with a different opinion. But knowing that alone is kind of useless. No, pointing to somebody's origin or affiliations alone does not provide any value. It can be - if you start from there and become more concrete with respect to the specific text we are looking at. Strangely enough, this kind of statement also is the exact opposite of what is the purported goals, e.g. being against "racism": Mere affiliation is seen as sufficient as an argument against somebody and all their work, without even the tiniest bit of effort at actually looking at what they have. I sure don't mind somebody pointing out such affiliations - but I would at the very least want to see at least a token effort of them looking at the evidence in front of them in form of the text being discussed.
- tgv 4y ago
  My comment wasn't about being two-sided; it's more againts being single-sided. "Keep in mind" combined with "pushing agendas" means: you cannot trust the message, because it was written to manipulate you. It's guilt by association.

throwawayacc3 4y ago

"The narrative must be preserved! We can't have any wrongthink hit the front page!"

pjc50 4y ago

> It's very "weird" how lately these proxy sites pushing socially conservative agendas that turn out to be run by conservative think tanks have been landing and languishing on the front page here Culture war material is explicitly against the HN rules, so you can flag it with a clear conscience. I don't think many hackers know much about anthropology to start with, which is a shame.

throwawayacc3 4y ago
"Destroy the heretical content! Wrongthink apostasy should be banned! We must preserve the narrative!"

Beltalowda 4y ago

> It's very "weird" how lately these proxy sites pushing socially conservative agendas that turn out to be run by conservative think tanks have been landing and languishing on the front page here The issue is these sites are the only ones that will write about it at all, as many more left and centre publications avoid the topic so this is all we're left with. There is a cheat-code argument that prevents more centre-aligned people from writing about it: "it's {racist,harmful,transphobic,etc...} if you write about X". Sometimes, this is true, but usually it is asserted without any argument as an axiom. No one likes to defend themselves against accusations of racism; you've already lost if you're in that position. We should of course be having conversations about what exactly is racist, harmful, transphobic, etc. but these are not "conversations" and mere "accusations. If you go to the "right-wing outrage sites" – which this site doesn't seem to be by the way – you'll see a lot of outrage nonsense interspersed with actually some pretty decent stories (often badly written up, but good stories nonetheless) that no one else will report. Every ideology or "side" has its blind spots, something people seem to forgot at times. A group that doesn't allow self-criticism tends to become increasingly more anti-intellectual over time. The last time I took one of those "political spectrum tests" I was further to the left than Lenin. It's kind-of a bullshit test but it goes to show I'm not exactly on the right-hand side of the political spectrum. Yet, I've found it's become impossible to comment on platforms with a left-wing bias, as merely saying things such as "wait, I think I have a better idea to solve this social problem: [...] What do you think?" can quickly result in quite horrible accusations and insults being thrown your way. I don't understand this attitude; we agree about the problem, we just have different ideas about how to best solve it. How can you NOT be interested in a possible better way to solve what we both consider a serious problem? It is of course completely fine to disagree, but what I get is not "I disagree, because ...", it's "you need to shut the fuck up you rightoid!"

int_19h 4y ago

Thing is, they do have some valid points, even if they often end up buried in a heap of muck. E.g. I don't think that criticizing this is only possible from a conservative perspective: "In her work with the Nuxalk, Leischner decided not to record any of the interviews, so as not to continue the legacy of extraction."