4 ms·

What's funny is that the line you thought you cherry-picked as a gotcha actually tells the story: > abandon the idea that the value of people lies in their att

What's funny is that the line you thought you cherry-picked as a gotcha actually tells the story: > abandon the idea that the value of people lies in their attributes For anyone reading, the "attribute" that the racist author is referring to is the intelligence of non-white people, which the racist author says is inferior to whites.

tb_technical 3y ago
It wasn't cherry picked. It was the concluding paragraph. Additionally, nowhere in the essay does the author say that other ethnic groups are inferior to whites. In fact, it's only mentioned, tangentially, and not expanded upon, that different groups have different average IQs. As an aside: If someone reaches the correct answer for the wrong reasons, are they wrong? Personally, I'm pragmatic, and don't care how people reach my ideals on the proper treatment of people.
- valar_m 3y ago
  I'm going to operate under the assumption that you're replying in good faith and truly don't recognize the racist and anti-Semitic dog whistles all throughout the article. I'll highlight some of them for you. Btw, if you aren't familiar with dog whistles, read this first: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics) Here is an anti-Semitic dog whistle that promotes the conspiracy theory that Jews control the media: >Working with journalists was an enlightening experience. There were some amazing people, but I found many to be arrogant and self-centered. It was frustrating to me that such people were the gatekeepers that millions of people got their news on the world through. The uses of "arrogant" and "self-centered" are dog whistles for anti-Semitic tropes about Jews being elitists and selfish, respectively, and the part about them being gatekeepers of the news refers to the anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that Jews control the media. Here we have two dog whistles in one sentence: >I had gotten used to the fake politeness and backstabbing at the newspaper. The "fake politeness" line is an anti-Semitic dog whistle intended to promote the idea of Jews being sneaky and untrustworthy. The word "backstabbing" is a dog whistle for the anti-Semitic Stab-in-the-back myth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_myth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_myth Here is the author getting a little more explicit about what they're talking about: >After the 2020 “racial reckoning” we saw the rapid increase in new social policies based on this logic. Here is another dog whistle where the author refers to a person with a traditionally Jewish last name, which they directly associate with having secret evil intentions and hidden political power: >In additional, activist public intellectuals such as Stephen J Gould sold a willing public on beliefs that were based less on science than egalitarian hopes and dreams. These explanations have their merit, but I think they are too kind for assuming good intentions. Throughout human history, the powerful have sought to mystify the source of their power, whether it be through religion, divine mandate or royal inheritance. I could go on, the article is absolutely full of racist and anti-Semitic dog whistles. Do you really not see them?
  - tb_technical 3y ago
    Not really, no. I don't see them. I'm a little preturbed, though. When the author talked about his time working with journalists, and when he described some of them negatively, you assumed he was talking about Jews. When he talked about Stephen Gould, a widely read pop-sci academic, you zeroed in on his last name's "Jewish-ness". It just seems like you're reading a lot into what he's saying, rather than what he's saying. Also, FYI, on hacker news you're supposed to assume good faith.
    - valar_m 3y ago
      The account that posted the article also posted an explicitly anti-Semitic comment that promotes the conspiracy theory that Jews are secretly in control of the media[0]: >Uh, yes. Elon does not follow the program, and doesn't have the kind of pull Gates has, even though he's richer. Gates is the poster child for state initiatives. Elon is out on his own agenda. Edit: Using Gates as an example. Check Media Matters' donors and get back to me. (Spoiler alert, tons of huge Jewish NGOs. Who did Elon piss off by correctly claiming had outsized influence, again?) Does knowing that the author explicitly promotes anti-Semitism change your opinion? I'm also curious if this information changes your opinion that I'm reading too much into the article. Edit: I linked the wrong one, there were two anti-Semites in the same thread. Here is the correct comment that was removed for violating HN policies: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38438884#38439602 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38438884#38439602 Here is what it said (I had it open in another window before it was removed): >I wish people were a little more skeptical about the negative claims about Twitter/X in the press the last few days, knowing that Elon Musk has pissed off some very powerful people with his recent comments. Different person, same anti-Semitism, same conspiracy theories being promoted. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38441058 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38441058
    - valar_m 3y ago
      >When he talked about Stephen Gould, a widely read pop-sci academic, you zeroed in on his last name's "Jewish-ness". Replying to this separately because I feel like you mischaracterized my point about Stephen Gould, and I think you're aware of that. I did not simply zero in on his last name, as your comment says. I pointed out that the author directly links a Jewish person to having secret evil intentions and hidden political power: >These explanations have their merit, but I think they are too kind for assuming good intentions. Throughout human history, the powerful have sought to mystify the source of their power, whether it be through religion, divine mandate or royal inheritance. By the way, did you notice that "divine mandate" line? Why don't you take a guess on that one, too.
- valar_m 3y ago
  > As an aside: If someone reaches the correct answer for the wrong reasons, are they wrong? Personally, I'm pragmatic, and don't care how people reach my ideals on the proper treatment of people. Forgot to respond to this part in my other reply so I'll just create a new one. The entire purpose of the article is to promote anti-Semitic and racist ideas with thinly veiled dog whistles. The author isn't reaching the same conclusion as you at all - their intention is to promote hatred. That's the whole point of a dog whistle - to promote hate and discrimination to those who would be receptive while maintaining some sliver of deniability. It's frustrating to see that it worked so well on you in this particular case, but it's a good reminder of how effective dog whistling can be.
  - tb_technical 3y ago
    It didn't "work" on me. I read the article, picked up on the fact that this guy's is probably conservative, and was pleasantly surprised by the conclusion he drew to the problem of AI making intelligence obsolete. I can form my own opinions, without people like you insinuating that I've been manipulated.
    - valar_m 3y ago
      What do you mean it didn't work on you? You're defending an article written by someone who promotes indisputably anti-Semitic conspiracy theories[0]. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38439602 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38439602

tb_technical 3y ago

It wasn't cherry picked. It was the concluding paragraph. Additionally, nowhere in the essay does the author say that other ethnic groups are inferior to whites. In fact, it's only mentioned, tangentially, and not expanded upon, that different groups have different average IQs. As an aside: If someone reaches the correct answer for the wrong reasons, are they wrong? Personally, I'm pragmatic, and don't care how people reach my ideals on the proper treatment of people.

valar_m 3y ago
I'm going to operate under the assumption that you're replying in good faith and truly don't recognize the racist and anti-Semitic dog whistles all throughout the article. I'll highlight some of them for you. Btw, if you aren't familiar with dog whistles, read this first: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics) Here is an anti-Semitic dog whistle that promotes the conspiracy theory that Jews control the media: >Working with journalists was an enlightening experience. There were some amazing people, but I found many to be arrogant and self-centered. It was frustrating to me that such people were the gatekeepers that millions of people got their news on the world through. The uses of "arrogant" and "self-centered" are dog whistles for anti-Semitic tropes about Jews being elitists and selfish, respectively, and the part about them being gatekeepers of the news refers to the anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that Jews control the media. Here we have two dog whistles in one sentence: >I had gotten used to the fake politeness and backstabbing at the newspaper. The "fake politeness" line is an anti-Semitic dog whistle intended to promote the idea of Jews being sneaky and untrustworthy. The word "backstabbing" is a dog whistle for the anti-Semitic Stab-in-the-back myth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_myth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_myth Here is the author getting a little more explicit about what they're talking about: >After the 2020 “racial reckoning” we saw the rapid increase in new social policies based on this logic. Here is another dog whistle where the author refers to a person with a traditionally Jewish last name, which they directly associate with having secret evil intentions and hidden political power: >In additional, activist public intellectuals such as Stephen J Gould sold a willing public on beliefs that were based less on science than egalitarian hopes and dreams. These explanations have their merit, but I think they are too kind for assuming good intentions. Throughout human history, the powerful have sought to mystify the source of their power, whether it be through religion, divine mandate or royal inheritance. I could go on, the article is absolutely full of racist and anti-Semitic dog whistles. Do you really not see them?
- tb_technical 3y ago
  Not really, no. I don't see them. I'm a little preturbed, though. When the author talked about his time working with journalists, and when he described some of them negatively, you assumed he was talking about Jews. When he talked about Stephen Gould, a widely read pop-sci academic, you zeroed in on his last name's "Jewish-ness". It just seems like you're reading a lot into what he's saying, rather than what he's saying. Also, FYI, on hacker news you're supposed to assume good faith.
  - valar_m 3y ago
    The account that posted the article also posted an explicitly anti-Semitic comment that promotes the conspiracy theory that Jews are secretly in control of the media[0]: >Uh, yes. Elon does not follow the program, and doesn't have the kind of pull Gates has, even though he's richer. Gates is the poster child for state initiatives. Elon is out on his own agenda. Edit: Using Gates as an example. Check Media Matters' donors and get back to me. (Spoiler alert, tons of huge Jewish NGOs. Who did Elon piss off by correctly claiming had outsized influence, again?) Does knowing that the author explicitly promotes anti-Semitism change your opinion? I'm also curious if this information changes your opinion that I'm reading too much into the article. Edit: I linked the wrong one, there were two anti-Semites in the same thread. Here is the correct comment that was removed for violating HN policies: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38438884#38439602 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38438884#38439602 Here is what it said (I had it open in another window before it was removed): >I wish people were a little more skeptical about the negative claims about Twitter/X in the press the last few days, knowing that Elon Musk has pissed off some very powerful people with his recent comments. Different person, same anti-Semitism, same conspiracy theories being promoted. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38441058 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38441058
  - valar_m 3y ago
    >When he talked about Stephen Gould, a widely read pop-sci academic, you zeroed in on his last name's "Jewish-ness". Replying to this separately because I feel like you mischaracterized my point about Stephen Gould, and I think you're aware of that. I did not simply zero in on his last name, as your comment says. I pointed out that the author directly links a Jewish person to having secret evil intentions and hidden political power: >These explanations have their merit, but I think they are too kind for assuming good intentions. Throughout human history, the powerful have sought to mystify the source of their power, whether it be through religion, divine mandate or royal inheritance. By the way, did you notice that "divine mandate" line? Why don't you take a guess on that one, too.
valar_m 3y ago
> As an aside: If someone reaches the correct answer for the wrong reasons, are they wrong? Personally, I'm pragmatic, and don't care how people reach my ideals on the proper treatment of people. Forgot to respond to this part in my other reply so I'll just create a new one. The entire purpose of the article is to promote anti-Semitic and racist ideas with thinly veiled dog whistles. The author isn't reaching the same conclusion as you at all - their intention is to promote hatred. That's the whole point of a dog whistle - to promote hate and discrimination to those who would be receptive while maintaining some sliver of deniability. It's frustrating to see that it worked so well on you in this particular case, but it's a good reminder of how effective dog whistling can be.
- tb_technical 3y ago
  It didn't "work" on me. I read the article, picked up on the fact that this guy's is probably conservative, and was pleasantly surprised by the conclusion he drew to the problem of AI making intelligence obsolete. I can form my own opinions, without people like you insinuating that I've been manipulated.
  - valar_m 3y ago
    What do you mean it didn't work on you? You're defending an article written by someone who promotes indisputably anti-Semitic conspiracy theories[0]. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38439602 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38439602