(Hi, finally decided to post here. I’ve read SSC posts sporadically
over the past few years, and started reading a little more regularly
recently. I basically enjoyed his essays and was intrigued that some of
the lesswrongers had gone in a non-insane direction. And then I started
realizing how conceited and un-self-aware the essays have become and how
awful the commenters are. Lately I’ve been lurking the SSC subreddit and
hate-reading, which led me to this one.)
What strikes me is how Alexander always has to reconstruct other
people’s arguments from scratch into ones of his own liking when
addressing them, instead of understanding them on their own terms. Which
he’s been getting worse at lately. The first time it really got to me
was the “Crying Wolf” Trump thing with all the arguments he refused to
address. But now he and his commenters do it for basically everything to
do with liberals. They basically interpret all progressive reasoning as
disingenuous by default and then come up with their own ad-hoc
‘steelman’ to argue against, and believe this is identical to seeing the
situation from the other side. Scott constantly persuades himself with
his invented liberal arguments and pats himself on the back for being so
enlightened, like so:
“Ah well. They said a racist thing. Guess we’ve got to kill them.”
And I agree with this chain of logic.
So he found a way to construct strawman ‘violent rioting antiracists’
into an integral part of liberalism, and he did it so well that he’s
forced to agree with their devious plan to kill all racists, with no
consideration for whether it’s actually a credible concern.
This is why they can’t get past the ‘race realism’ obsession. Every
argument assumes that the other side is just themselves but in denial
about the facts, then constructs good-faith reasons why they would deny
the facts. Then it turns into a debate over suppressing science and
holding back intelligence which they will always win.
This one takes even less time to poke holes in the ‘liberal’ position
and just meanders off into absurdity to avoid responsibility for his
argument. I don’t even get what he’s doing anymore.
That's the correct response. Like, taking his example of rate of imprisonment - Blacks get imprisoned at a higher rate than Whites for the *same crimes*. The correct response isn't "do nothing" *or* "take away the ability to see criminal records", it's to correct the systemic problems causing these disparities.
That doesn't apply if you are the one profiting from the system. It's strongly associated with the "go to hell, I got mine" idea deeply embedded into capitalism/liberalism.
> The correct response isn't [..] "take away the ability to see criminal records", it's to correct the systemic problems causing these disparities.
But you've got to respect today's utilitarians for biting all the bullets yesterday's utilitarians were trying to dodge.
it also bothers me that Ben Carson is allowed to practice though. just because you're a genius at doing something doesn't mean you're plying your trade ethically or responsibly and lately I think a lot of his less hinged essays call that into question
Second, by this definition, many racist things would be good. Suppose
some tyrant wants to kill the ten million richest white people, then
redistribute their things to black people. This would certainly
challenge white supremacy and help minorities. So by this definition,
resisting this tyrant would be racist. But obviously this tyrant is evil
and resisting him is the right thing to do.
Communists will only need to take the riches of the top 500 or 1,000
or so. Not sure where this 10 million is coming from. And we wont need
to kill them, just give their money and property to the rightful owners;
the workers.
"Imagine you're riding a trolley, and in front of you are five people tied to the tracks..."
"Hold up a second! Where is that five number coming from? That's totally unrealistic. Communists don't believe in tying so many people to the tracks!"
You're seriously unable to recognize an obvious thought experiment. I'm not sure what brain damage you suffered in childhood, but it's probably in your best interests to refrain from this sort of criticism in the future.
Actually it you who cannot recognise simple subtextual readings deilvered in a comedic manner. Likely due to liberalism or brain damage (same difference)
There was no valid subtextual reading according to which the number 10 million was supposed to come from anywhere or matter, or according to which this example was supposed to illustrate anything about Communism. This is just your imagination/Communist fixation.
Actually it is Scott Alexander's political neuroses which make such a reading evident. He wouldn't pose such an idiotic "thought experiment" (i.e. something stupid he made up to try to make his brainless point) unless he had significant anxieties about the possibility of the white supremacist capitalist system being dismantled by a left-wing re-distributive regime. I am much smarter than you and I keep insulting you in funny ways so you might as well give up.
I'm right and I'm making you look like an idiot. The only unfortunate part is that there's diminishing returns on my jokes due to the fact that you keep saying stupid things in similar ways every time.
(Hi, finally decided to post here. I’ve read SSC posts sporadically over the past few years, and started reading a little more regularly recently. I basically enjoyed his essays and was intrigued that some of the lesswrongers had gone in a non-insane direction. And then I started realizing how conceited and un-self-aware the essays have become and how awful the commenters are. Lately I’ve been lurking the SSC subreddit and hate-reading, which led me to this one.)
What strikes me is how Alexander always has to reconstruct other people’s arguments from scratch into ones of his own liking when addressing them, instead of understanding them on their own terms. Which he’s been getting worse at lately. The first time it really got to me was the “Crying Wolf” Trump thing with all the arguments he refused to address. But now he and his commenters do it for basically everything to do with liberals. They basically interpret all progressive reasoning as disingenuous by default and then come up with their own ad-hoc ‘steelman’ to argue against, and believe this is identical to seeing the situation from the other side. Scott constantly persuades himself with his invented liberal arguments and pats himself on the back for being so enlightened, like so:
So he found a way to construct strawman ‘violent rioting antiracists’ into an integral part of liberalism, and he did it so well that he’s forced to agree with their devious plan to kill all racists, with no consideration for whether it’s actually a credible concern.
This is why they can’t get past the ‘race realism’ obsession. Every argument assumes that the other side is just themselves but in denial about the facts, then constructs good-faith reasons why they would deny the facts. Then it turns into a debate over suppressing science and holding back intelligence which they will always win.
This one takes even less time to poke holes in the ‘liberal’ position and just meanders off into absurdity to avoid responsibility for his argument. I don’t even get what he’s doing anymore.
Has Scott Alexander never heard of a cluster concept before?
What an enlightened bunch these are.
I feel slightly confused and nauseous after reading this.
it is deeply troubling to me that this man practices medicine
Communists will only need to take the riches of the top 500 or 1,000 or so. Not sure where this 10 million is coming from. And we wont need to kill them, just give their money and property to the rightful owners; the workers.
Is this the height of his obtuse bullshit? I’ve read some absolute trash on SSC but this might the worst.
DAMNIT, I THOUGHT THIS WAS MY TURN.