4 ms·

I'd love some reasoning for why this guy in particular comes in for such an amount of character assassination. Is it the fact that he's academically adjacent y

I'd love some reasoning for why this guy in particular comes in for such an amount of character assassination. Is it the fact that he's academically adjacent yet doesn't toe the line? There are thousands of people with middlebrow blogs out there, why the focus on slatestarcodex?

cma 4y ago
It's mainly the stealth pushing of eugenics.
- woooooo 4y ago
  That's what I'm talking about, you can accuse anyone of "stealth pushing eugenics" with enough text to comb through and a willingness to quote out of context. Heck, plenty of "woke" authors would qualify. Why him? This went on for years and years before culminating in that NYT article.
  - cma 4y ago
    He was pretty open here that he uses this as plausible deniability. On some other uncovered stuff that came out after the NYT article I believe he was paying homeless in exchange for getting sterilized, or making plans to. I'll have to dig it up. edit: I think it was for homeless with partially heritable mental illness, not all homeless
    - woooooo 4y ago
      Now there's a claim I'd love to see some evidence for.
      - throwoooo 4y ago
        [dead]
        woooooo 4y ago
        I'm honored by the nickname, thanks :)
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- nyolfen 4y ago
  choosing a sex partner is stealth eugenics
strken 4y ago
I think it's because he's basically correct, or convincing enough to seem so, about a set of facts that we've all decided to politely ignore for the good of society. As the rationalists might say, scientific racism is (seen as) an infohazard that will destroy many useful cultural institutions if it spreads beyond the small community of researchers with sufficient context to understand it, and he's spreading it. The thing about infohazards is that even true information can be hazardous. Other middlebrow blogs either talk about different things, have less reach, or aren't as vulnerable.
- yterdy 4y ago
  I think we should be clear that scientific racism is a case of an infohazard that is not, in fact, true (even if one can make a convincing, though ultimately fallacy-dependent, argument for it, usually by ignoring the falsification of the "sets of facts" which underpin it). The trouble is that admitting that is also a sort of infohazard, for certain people.
  - strken 4y ago
    I have absolutely no idea whether it's actually correct or not, make no claims about it, and don't think the object level question matters compared to whether it's harmful. Discussing its validity in any way is falling into the trap of publicising it.
    - yterdy 4y ago
      It matters because the topic refuses to stay buried (say, when brought up as an example of a controversial figure's purported views), and the prospect of it not being a closed question invites bad actors to rationalize social inequity, and their own tainted views and actions, through its lens. This is a topic where a conscientious person should have an idea of its correctness and should stake that claim firmly. Best of all, doing so eliminates one's part in the harm of its nature as an infohazard.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
jancsika 4y ago
> There are thousands of people with middlebrow blogs out there, why the focus on slatestarcodex? It's got to be the distance between the quality/tone of his writing and the quality/tone of his fansplainers on HN, no? See also: * Rick and Morty episodes vs. Rick and Morty subreddit posts * David Foster Wallace's oeuvre vs. Those who emulate his writing on forums * Dream Theater vs. the Dream Theater fan who just asked me if I've ever heard of Dream Theater These particular objects of admiration seem to generate fandoms which are a) ready and willing to educate anyone on the relevant subject matter, and c) sure seem like they only know the relevant subject matter-- if at all-- through that particular niche object of admiration. Personally, I find that a) people don't like having other people's arbitrary hobby horses explained to them, and b) people really don't like it when the figure out that the explainer seems to be living vicariously through a second-hand explanation of the thing they admire. I mean, I just can't imagine someone saying, "Hey, that's a fun/witty blog. I should deanonymize the author and ruin their practice." However, I can see that happening after the Nth encounter with a slatestarcodex fan. Not to say it's fair. And personally, I enjoy both Dream Theater and conversations with their fans. But a few sentences in, those fans probably can tell that I've listened to way too much music and they quickly get off their hobby horse. Others who aren't as musically inclined probably get an unsolicited earful of an unhealthy obsession.

cma 4y ago

It's mainly the stealth pushing of eugenics.

woooooo 4y ago
That's what I'm talking about, you can accuse anyone of "stealth pushing eugenics" with enough text to comb through and a willingness to quote out of context. Heck, plenty of "woke" authors would qualify. Why him? This went on for years and years before culminating in that NYT article.
- cma 4y ago
  He was pretty open here that he uses this as plausible deniability. On some other uncovered stuff that came out after the NYT article I believe he was paying homeless in exchange for getting sterilized, or making plans to. I'll have to dig it up. edit: I think it was for homeless with partially heritable mental illness, not all homeless
  - woooooo 4y ago
    Now there's a claim I'd love to see some evidence for.
    - throwoooo 4y ago
      [dead]
      - woooooo 4y ago
        I'm honored by the nickname, thanks :)
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
nyolfen 4y ago
choosing a sex partner is stealth eugenics

strken 4y ago

I think it's because he's basically correct, or convincing enough to seem so, about a set of facts that we've all decided to politely ignore for the good of society. As the rationalists might say, scientific racism is (seen as) an infohazard that will destroy many useful cultural institutions if it spreads beyond the small community of researchers with sufficient context to understand it, and he's spreading it. The thing about infohazards is that even true information can be hazardous. Other middlebrow blogs either talk about different things, have less reach, or aren't as vulnerable.

yterdy 4y ago
I think we should be clear that scientific racism is a case of an infohazard that is not, in fact, true (even if one can make a convincing, though ultimately fallacy-dependent, argument for it, usually by ignoring the falsification of the "sets of facts" which underpin it). The trouble is that admitting that is also a sort of infohazard, for certain people.
- strken 4y ago
  I have absolutely no idea whether it's actually correct or not, make no claims about it, and don't think the object level question matters compared to whether it's harmful. Discussing its validity in any way is falling into the trap of publicising it.
  - yterdy 4y ago
    It matters because the topic refuses to stay buried (say, when brought up as an example of a controversial figure's purported views), and the prospect of it not being a closed question invites bad actors to rationalize social inequity, and their own tainted views and actions, through its lens. This is a topic where a conscientious person should have an idea of its correctness and should stake that claim firmly. Best of all, doing so eliminates one's part in the harm of its nature as an infohazard.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]

jancsika 4y ago

> There are thousands of people with middlebrow blogs out there, why the focus on slatestarcodex? It's got to be the distance between the quality/tone of his writing and the quality/tone of his fansplainers on HN, no? See also: * Rick and Morty episodes vs. Rick and Morty subreddit posts * David Foster Wallace's oeuvre vs. Those who emulate his writing on forums * Dream Theater vs. the Dream Theater fan who just asked me if I've ever heard of Dream Theater These particular objects of admiration seem to generate fandoms which are a) ready and willing to educate anyone on the relevant subject matter, and c) sure seem like they only know the relevant subject matter-- if at all-- through that particular niche object of admiration. Personally, I find that a) people don't like having other people's arbitrary hobby horses explained to them, and b) people really don't like it when the figure out that the explainer seems to be living vicariously through a second-hand explanation of the thing they admire. I mean, I just can't imagine someone saying, "Hey, that's a fun/witty blog. I should deanonymize the author and ruin their practice." However, I can see that happening after the Nth encounter with a slatestarcodex fan. Not to say it's fair. And personally, I enjoy both Dream Theater and conversations with their fans. But a few sentences in, those fans probably can tell that I've listened to way too much music and they quickly get off their hobby horse. Others who aren't as musically inclined probably get an unsolicited earful of an unhealthy obsession.