6 ms·

An assertion without rationale is noise or worse. "That's racist; cancel them!" falls in the latter category. It's the mindless baying of the rabble. You don't

An assertion without rationale is noise or worse. "That's racist; cancel them!" falls in the latter category. It's the mindless baying of the rabble. You don't engage with the rabble, as there's no fixing stupid. You just hope they shut up, so that you and the other adults can think, and you hope that the rabble burns down someone else's house. Analogously, there's not much to be gained from engaging with someone shouting "Allahu Akbar; death to infidels!" That's drone purview. I hope that helps.

daveguy 2y ago
Your conflation of responding "yes it is," when someone claims something is not racist when it clearly is with "that's racist, cancel them!" seems disingenuous. As disingenuous as conflating it to "Allahu Akbar; death to infidels". Correctly identifying a statement as racist when someone else said it wasn't is about as polar opposite as you can get to "death to infidels!" Do you see them as equivalent?
cauch 2y ago
But the author himself says that his sentence is repugnant. Are you saying that the author has no rational to say that? It really looks like nowadays we cannot say "that looks racist" without being accused of being the big satan that want to cancel everyone. If this kind of "ad-hominem" is not itself not without any rational and not noisy and inflammatory, I don't know what is. You can, if you want, defend that according to you this statement was fine and not racist. But you don't do just that, you also say that people who don't agree with you merit to be down-voted and that the forum would be better if their voice was not even there. Difficult to not see there exactly a justification of a "cancelation" of an opinion you just don't like.
- exo-pla-net 2y ago
  > Are you saying that the author has no rational to say that? Sure, instrumental rationale: PR. And, because I believe that Bostrom says what he means, Bostrom probably does think what he said was repugnant, but probably not in a way that you would find satisfying. Bostrom probably thinks that speaking truthfully about vulnerable people, in a manner that could distress them (e.g. owing to their misunderstanding of the truthful words, or in a "truth hurts" sort of way), is morally repugnant. Better to spare them suffering. If I am correct, I disagree with Bostrom. Having to cater to delicate and low-IQ sensibilities is a wrench in the wheels of intellectual discourse, as well as a dystopian blow to personal expression. Don't let the scolds win. > It really looks like nowadays we cannot say "that looks racist" You don't have a license to denigration. Think very carefully, and consider the possibility that you are wrong, before you cast stones. > You can, if you want, defend that according to you this statement was fine and not racist. But what I quoted contained my rationale? If it ain't good enough for you, the impetus is on you to prove that Bostrom is, in fact, a witch. The ball is in your court. > Difficult to not see there exactly a "cancelation" of an opinion you just don't like. Any opinion at all, and especially opinions that differ from my own, I'd welcome at the table, as long as said opinion is articulated and epistemically rationalized by someone who is smart and who has given it careful thought. If you're not capable of that, then yes, your silence would improve the forum.
  - notahacker 2y ago
    A statement that Race X is "more stupid" than Race Y is almost tautologically racist. The idea that Nick denigrating an entire race as 'stupid' is "accurate and mild", whereas any suggestion that the statement contains racism requires a "license to denigrate" is truly through the looking glass...
    - exo-pla-net 2y ago
      He's not saying the race is stupid. He is saying that it is more stupid, an operant he expounds on, revealing his underlying meaning as both accurate and mild. A factual statement is not and is never denigration. If you and you specifically were the sole member of a race, for instance, his operant would rank your race below that of Black. This would be an observation, not a denigration. But, if you are not Black, you are the recipient of favorable averaging. Your race would be less stupid than Black, despite you. I hope that helps.
      - notahacker 2y ago
        > He's not saying the race is stupid. He is saying that it is more stupid I think the fact that you're reduced to asserting that it's logically possible to assert that a group is "more stupid" without asserting that they are in any way stupid pretty neatly demonstrates my point about comparisons between races with disparaging adjectives being almost tautologically racist. (The second half of your post is even more pointless to engage with. :)
      - davidgerard 2y ago
        dang, you need to consider what sort of site you're running
    - hackinthebochs 2y ago
      Do facts not have any relevance to this debate? Is it all just vibes? I.e. Bostrom is racist because his vibe was off?
      - 2y ago
anigbrowl 2y ago
An assertion without rationale is noise or worse. This could equally be applied to statements like 'blacks are more stupid than whites'. Rather than anyone calling for Bostrom to be cancelled, most of the people posting here just wonder how a clever and academically successful person like Bostrom could have been oblivious to the factual and historical problems of such a broad generalization. One could equally wonder why he picked a racial trope as his controversial example, as opposed to challenging the conventional wisdom on nuclear weapons, or economics, or the superiority of rugby to association football, or the correct pronunciation of 'gif'.
helboi4 2y ago
Yeah bro I never said anyone should be cancelled. I have a problem with people calling the statement "Blacks are stupider than whites" "accurate".

daveguy 2y ago

Your conflation of responding "yes it is," when someone claims something is not racist when it clearly is with "that's racist, cancel them!" seems disingenuous. As disingenuous as conflating it to "Allahu Akbar; death to infidels". Correctly identifying a statement as racist when someone else said it wasn't is about as polar opposite as you can get to "death to infidels!" Do you see them as equivalent?

cauch 2y ago

But the author himself says that his sentence is repugnant. Are you saying that the author has no rational to say that? It really looks like nowadays we cannot say "that looks racist" without being accused of being the big satan that want to cancel everyone. If this kind of "ad-hominem" is not itself not without any rational and not noisy and inflammatory, I don't know what is. You can, if you want, defend that according to you this statement was fine and not racist. But you don't do just that, you also say that people who don't agree with you merit to be down-voted and that the forum would be better if their voice was not even there. Difficult to not see there exactly a justification of a "cancelation" of an opinion you just don't like.

exo-pla-net 2y ago
> Are you saying that the author has no rational to say that? Sure, instrumental rationale: PR. And, because I believe that Bostrom says what he means, Bostrom probably does think what he said was repugnant, but probably not in a way that you would find satisfying. Bostrom probably thinks that speaking truthfully about vulnerable people, in a manner that could distress them (e.g. owing to their misunderstanding of the truthful words, or in a "truth hurts" sort of way), is morally repugnant. Better to spare them suffering. If I am correct, I disagree with Bostrom. Having to cater to delicate and low-IQ sensibilities is a wrench in the wheels of intellectual discourse, as well as a dystopian blow to personal expression. Don't let the scolds win. > It really looks like nowadays we cannot say "that looks racist" You don't have a license to denigration. Think very carefully, and consider the possibility that you are wrong, before you cast stones. > You can, if you want, defend that according to you this statement was fine and not racist. But what I quoted contained my rationale? If it ain't good enough for you, the impetus is on you to prove that Bostrom is, in fact, a witch. The ball is in your court. > Difficult to not see there exactly a "cancelation" of an opinion you just don't like. Any opinion at all, and especially opinions that differ from my own, I'd welcome at the table, as long as said opinion is articulated and epistemically rationalized by someone who is smart and who has given it careful thought. If you're not capable of that, then yes, your silence would improve the forum.
- notahacker 2y ago
  A statement that Race X is "more stupid" than Race Y is almost tautologically racist. The idea that Nick denigrating an entire race as 'stupid' is "accurate and mild", whereas any suggestion that the statement contains racism requires a "license to denigrate" is truly through the looking glass...
  - exo-pla-net 2y ago
    He's not saying the race is stupid. He is saying that it is more stupid, an operant he expounds on, revealing his underlying meaning as both accurate and mild. A factual statement is not and is never denigration. If you and you specifically were the sole member of a race, for instance, his operant would rank your race below that of Black. This would be an observation, not a denigration. But, if you are not Black, you are the recipient of favorable averaging. Your race would be less stupid than Black, despite you. I hope that helps.
    - notahacker 2y ago
      > He's not saying the race is stupid. He is saying that it is more stupid I think the fact that you're reduced to asserting that it's logically possible to assert that a group is "more stupid" without asserting that they are in any way stupid pretty neatly demonstrates my point about comparisons between races with disparaging adjectives being almost tautologically racist. (The second half of your post is even more pointless to engage with. :)
    - davidgerard 2y ago
      dang, you need to consider what sort of site you're running
  - hackinthebochs 2y ago
    Do facts not have any relevance to this debate? Is it all just vibes? I.e. Bostrom is racist because his vibe was off?
    - 2y ago

anigbrowl 2y ago

An assertion without rationale is noise or worse. This could equally be applied to statements like 'blacks are more stupid than whites'. Rather than anyone calling for Bostrom to be cancelled, most of the people posting here just wonder how a clever and academically successful person like Bostrom could have been oblivious to the factual and historical problems of such a broad generalization. One could equally wonder why he picked a racial trope as his controversial example, as opposed to challenging the conventional wisdom on nuclear weapons, or economics, or the superiority of rugby to association football, or the correct pronunciation of 'gif'.

helboi4 2y ago

Yeah bro I never said anyone should be cancelled. I have a problem with people calling the statement "Blacks are stupider than whites" "accurate".