posted on February 19, 2021 08:05 PM by
u/foobanana
64
u/chandra38128 pointsat 1613792925.000000
I found a good take on this from twitter:
The reaction of the rationalist community has struck me as the
internet equivalent of mob-like behavior, precisely the kind of mob-like
behavior folks in the community constantly bemoan…and not over some deep
violation of some principle of justice but over a slight to a powerful,
wealthy and successful person who actually admitted he completely
overreacted.
This post very delicately hints at the real problem, which is that
Siskind and his readers are pathologically sensitive to any treatment
toward them that hints at the dreaded “cancellation”. The part where
Wilkinson gets closest to spelling it out is here:
The fact that this is a series of rhetorical questions and many of us
would honestly answer most of them the “wrong” [sic] strongly suggests
that this is addressed to Siskind’s devoted readership, not the rest of
us. He’s justifying their reaction, sense of grievance, and
threatened victimization to them. He’s helping them justify it
to themselves by inviting them to supply the answers that make
everything feel okay. Rational justification for the “right” answers
isn’t needed because this is rationalization. To acknowledge
the existence, much less the reasonableness, of the “wrong” answers
would interfere with community self-exoneration — with the comforting
sense of reassurance that “we are not the baddies.”
The thing is, though: convincing Siskind himself as well as his
readers that “we are not the baddies” is one of the main purposes of his
blog. He and his audience live in constant fear of being
exposedsmeared as bigots, so they need repeated
reassurance that, actually, it’s
the SJWs who are evil, so any attempts by SJWs to
criticizecancel them for their views are
illegitimate. So, by the time Metz first approached Siskind for the
article, he and his audience were primed to see it as the beginning of
their long-awaited existential struggle with the enemy. It’s this
framing, one which they constructed for themselves and henceforth could
no longer see out of, which led them to commit such a series of bewildering
overreactions that ultimately served only to prove just how batshit
they all are.
Well, i would say that there was an overreaction. Nevertheless their fears weren't exactly without any reason. James de Moore was fired for having a different view (which you could consider close to the rationalist community) on a specific topic. I think we all can agree that losing your job is kind of a "cancellation". There were some similar incidents.
I can't see how beeing critical and afraid of this (and people who push this stuff) is "framing"?
The freedom to express yourself (in most cases) without having fears of losing your job is one of the differences of democracy and a dictatorship.
Well and i wouldn't say that there is a right to stay anonym but i also think that the NYT article without the word "Siskind" would have been much different. It only brings some potential trouble to the author and i fail to understand why this is necessary.
James Damore wasn't fired for having a different view, he was fired for writing a whole manifesto about it and disseminating it through an internal mailing list. it's the most forseeable thing ever imo.
but i do think it is kinda scary that employers have unilateral control over the lives of their employees and can "cancel" them for no reason if they're so inclined, and i'd be completely fine with more employee ownership and self-direction, but if you live and work in America, you should probably be careful about sending out political manifestos at work. I know I'd be fired too if i let my political opinions be known lol, only it wouldn't become a national news story. happens every day, especially to people trying to unionize
Honestly, I think even this take is pretty generous to Damore. He wasn't fired for arguing for different immigration policy, or changing our tax structure, or military intervention in the Middle East or any number of other political views - he was fired for writing a manifesto in which he argued that a significant portion of his own coworkers were unfit to work at the company, solely on the basis of their gender. Even in a world where employees have more freedom and self-direction, I can't imagine that would be acceptable behavior.
i completely agree, i would hope that employees with more freedom and self-direction would make the same decision as Google in this instance. i'm just saying that Damore wasn't fired because of cancel culture or some culture war, it wasn't conservative oppression, he was fired because Google didn't like what he did, and their word is law. it just so happens that i also didn't like what he did.
like, i feel like this being framed as cancel culture redirects labor interests to fight with themselves, it's a distraction. or, i would hope that left-leaning people who oppose the manifesto wouldn't see this as a reason to give corporations even more power over their employees just cause they happened to make the right decision in this instance. The fact that the Republican-led NLRB dismissed his case where [a Democratic-led one probably would've upheld it](http://mattbruenig.com/2018/02/16/trump-nlrb-smashed-google-guy/) pretty succintly illustrates what i'm trying to say. this is a labor relations issue being reframed to justify corporate power with liberals and redirect criticism of that power with conservatives imo
That's a false equivalence. A more appropriate comparative hypothetical would be if Damore had written a manifesto implying that men and white people had biological characteristics that meant they weren't as good at being software engineers.
Theoretically yes, but this isn't a standpoint which people make? I prefer the practical hypothetical: The one side says : there are psychological differences (which are not up for change within the next 100 or so years because they are "biologicaly grounded" ) which lead to xyz. The other side would say: there are no psychological differences (which are not due to "sociological pressure" ) which lead to xyz. I'm not a native speaker and so some words may be not perfect for what I mean but I think you get the point I'm trying to make.
So you agree that Damore's position and the hypothetical "feminist" position are not actually equivalent. Does it make sense to you then why people who write the sort of things that Damore wrote might be treated differently from people who write from a feminist point of view?
Yes I agree on that. Like I said I prefer a realistic view on this, the equivalence is more based on the political landscape than the argument themselves.
No because both are legitimate standpoints which should not be punished. I would also say that a Manifesto which points out your first hypothetical point (that men are not capable equivalent) should not be punished. All of them, as long as there is some scientific research backing it.
Oh, and this is the last I'll say on this subject. Today is about self-care for me, and self-care means installing Hades and playing it all day, not sitting on Reddit debating with someone who thinks it's fine to argue that my emotional feminine brain makes me a worse coder.
Just to be clear, if someone announces at work, around black coworkers, that they think black people are genetically inferior, you think they should suffer no consequences?
I do belive that this is wrong just to be clear. But they shouldn't be fired if they do it in a style like de Moores. I would join the group which tries to discuss with them and in case this wouldn't be helpful I would be fine with socially "out grouping" them. In case I believe they would do it to insult people I would fire them. So context would matter to me. It's hard to have a scientific debate without offending people.
Okay, so if I "scientifically" believed that the holocaust didn't happen (based on some pseudoscience I read about zyklon B or whatever), you think i shouldn't be fired sending holocaust denial out on a company wide blast email?
A workplace is not a fucking debate club. If you spread bigoted misinformation about marginalised groups in the workplace, it doesn't matter that you legit believe the misinfo, you're still creating a hostile work environment for people who already put up with enough shit.
I would like to add something important: If the claim would be that white people are superior and this is the only suspect of the memo I would fire him. In case he makes claims like Murray I wouldn't if it fire him. Obviously just if it would be related of the work topic. I personally go with Nassim Taleb if it comes to stuff like Groups and IQ/other traits. It's just a singularly point of view and has very limited to zero reliability when it comes to the the individual standing in front of you.
And if I were to write a manifesto that said, "My coworker Bob should be flayed alive and impaled on the front lawn. Here are 10,000 words of supporting argument, which I claim is scientific evidence that I'm right," should I not be punished for that? Should I require that a panel of scientists review my argument and produce a 30,000 word report explaining why it's bullshit before I accept that it's legitimate for me to be punished for calling for the brutal murder of my coworker?
The thing is that rationalists like Scott like to treat any opinions as though they were just "views" to be debated on an equal playing field, as if they didn't have consequences when people accepted those views. Damore wasn't punished just for believing what he believed. He was punished for implying that *his own coworkers* were biologically inferior at software engineering and were only hired for diversity reasons. Promoting this view would have serious negative consequences for Google, as women and people of color would have to go to work with the additional stress of wondering which of their white male coworkers believed that they didn't deserve to have their jobs, and people with misogynist and racist beliefs would be further emboldened to promote those beliefs at the expense of their coworkers. Silicon Valley rationalism is built around the ethos of *being less wrong at all costs*, but the fact is that the collateral damage from forcing ourselves to solicit and consider every possible argument to the highest degree of "charity" is too great to accept.
i think he wouldn't have been fired if he didn't write a manifesto at all. we could speculate, probably not for a basic liberal feminist manifesto, probably so for the Communist Manifesto, etc.
Again, i agree it's fucked up that employers can sack you for no reason, and would love more employee ownership and self-direction, but living in America, that was extremely predictable. it happens every day, very often to union organizers, rarely a national news story like it was in Damore's case. I'm guessing its popularity is owed at least in part to its convenience for the "conservatives get cancelled" narrative, but just like most other examples in that narrative, it ignores that a lot of people are getting cancelled, conservatives just have major news organizations making stinks about it
Alright I would agree on the Communist Manifesto. But I would say that they probably (well obviously I can't prove it) wouldn't have fired him for a similar feminist Manifesto. Which is basically the argument I was trying to make. I'm not even sure if he was a conservative, he was basically referring to psychological studies and nothing else. He even came up with some "solutions" for the problem.
I don't live in the US, so I can't comment on the labor conditions over there but that's also not the original topic as far as I 'm concerned.
i'm not saying he's conservative, just that his story is very useful for a certain conservative narrative.
and i guess we just disagree then, cause my whole point is that this is a labor conditions issue being disguised as a "conservatives get cancelled" issue. like, imo, the actionable way to prevent firings like this isn't "try to get people to be more accepting of different views" or something like that, it's "give employees more protections and recourse when they're fired" imo. like the Republicans taking over the National Labor ~~Review~~ Relations Board [might be a big part](http://mattbruenig.com/2018/02/16/trump-nlrb-smashed-google-guy/) of his eventual loss in court; from a "cancel culture" framework this is completely unexpected, but from a "labor conditions" framework it's utterly predictable imo
A complex world feeds different narratives. Well and again, if there is a political aspect of who gets fired (i think that you agree on this issue because you didn't argue against it) people are obviously allowed to discuss it. Most people are capable of having different discussions. Again the labor conditions are not the topic the different treatments of opinions are. If you don't believe me just have a look on the original comment.
Well I didn't meant it literally. I should be more clear: I don't see why it should be only be discussed in the conservative media (which I don't consume unless SSC is conservative). I think it's in the interest of most people just like the labor conditions.
I don't think I have very much in common with the SSC community. I do occasionally read the Blog and the subreddit.
Mostly I read normal newspapers which are equivalent to NYT.
But how about you tell me why I'm wrong?
> But how about you tell me why I'm wrong?
Honestly, I don't think I've ever found a better takedown of Damore's argument than [this article](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/421/934/795.jpg) .
Yet I didn’t find it especially objectionable, either. This has put
me way out of step with practically everyone else who has ever been in
and around SSC circles.
Are we a joke to you? Wait… shit well that is a painful moment of
self awareness.
E: whatever you do, don’t read the comments. People still defending
Scott in the ageold rational ways. ‘Sure context matters, but what if it
didn’t?’. ‘correction a palantir isnt’ saurons all seeing eye’, ‘lets
discuss what a doxx is’, ‘why shouldn’t we dox journalists?’ (??)
etc.
I think this is one of my favorite takes so far on the whole ordeal.
Also, even though I disagree with him about the importance of there
being anonymity online for people who want it, his counterargument makes
a lot of sense and I think it’s something I should consider more.
(The reason I think it’s a lot more important than he’s saying
because I want that kind of protection for anyone with any kind of
controversial or unpopular ideas– which includes left-wing activists
that I very much support, and sometimes myself when I’m talking about
transgender issues. I’m totally OK with my employer and people in real
life knowing that I’m trans, but I wouldn’t want my employer to know
everything I’ve ever said about being transgender and trans issues.)
I am in the minority on this board in that I appreciate his defense
of real-ish journalism. But I think he is being waaaay too charitable to
Scott and his cronies. With the recent email exposure, I don’t see how
anyone can in good conscience give Scott even a sliver of benefit of
doubt. He is a capital L Lying capital S Slimeball through and through
and trying to empathize with him is a waste of energy.
How is he being charitable to them? He is basically talking to them, and asking them whether they have the courage of their Aumann agreement theorem to actually update on the evidence that Scott is somewhere high up on the dark triad puppet master plan, rather than closing ranks like the grey tribe/phyg they are currently behaving like. He’s just doing it in their lingo
A phyg is slightly different from a cult because cults don’t have embarrassing open discussions on Internet forums about how to look less like cults, and so a phyg is like the awkward younger brother of a cult. All the same downsides and more!
Cults saying we aint a cult is a cult thing however.
https://www.scientology.org/faq/scientology-and-other-practices/is-scientology-a-cult.html
Both even go 'think for yourself!'
>As the above example can serve to testify, the "lower forces" would - through their "norm" concept - what is "socially acceptable," what is politically correct - have you not believe in spirits, spirit possession, negative space aliens, Satan, etc. They would have you believe that to even dabble in these ideas is of the "occult," satanic, or at the least, giving credence to "fringe" topics. That's where they would also categorize any mental search of Eastern religions, astrology, metaphysics, paranormal, UFOs, etc., etc. In other words, they (these space aliens) don't want themselves "found out," so they condemn any exploration.
There you have it - Heaven's Gate are well aware that people may call them "fringe". But really they are just brave explorers, mental searchers, norms breakers. It's a pity that the politically correct have made Heaven's Gate into a taboo, shutting down conversation and policing what is "socially acceptable".
This reads like a lot of right wing criticisms of right wingers; it's a softball couched in "I mostly agree with you, I'm on your side, please don't freak out".
So I’m going to pound the table and insist, once again, that the New
York Times ranks among our best and most valuable institutions devoted
to the rapid discovery and dissemination of relevant and/or interesting
truths about the human world — news.
Well, that’s where you’ve lost most of the people you’re trying to
persuade, I think. I remember a long time ago, when I used to waste time
talking to them, I had to ask some Rationalists whether a random article
about tuning out of the news entirely and just listening to a police
scanner was satire or not. It was not and they were offended at the
question.
Yeah in his latest article he still gives entirely too much charity to Scott but he does expand on how he was a dumbass libertarian back in the day, how he's come to realize that he was a useful idiot for the scumbags.
This piece is long, and honestly I’ll probably not bother to finish
reading it because I have more useful things to do like sleep, but I do
have one question:
Do any of these motherfuckers ever look around at the groups that
they self identify with and say “holy shit, you all are awful people,
maybe I shouldn’t identify with y’all”?
No doubt. It's an imperfect org that is worthy of a lot of criticism. But the absolutely pearl clutching of the SSC fans is making them look staid and sober in comparison, which doesn't speak highly of SSCers, if anything ever does.
I'm imagining Bari Weiss wringing her hands agonizing over the possibility that some people out there might find her untrustworthy, and I am hooting and hollering
nyt literally had climate change """""skeptic(s)"""" in their op-ed and even a race science guy that wrote an infamous book that the whole human genetics community replied with a letter saying it's misrepresenting their papers,
and that's just scratching the surface
I’m finding this all deliciously funny. The clash of more neoliberal libertarians like Will vs the unhinged conspiracy theory libertarians like Balaji.
I found a good take on this from twitter:
This post very delicately hints at the real problem, which is that Siskind and his readers are pathologically sensitive to any treatment toward them that hints at the dreaded “cancellation”. The part where Wilkinson gets closest to spelling it out is here:
The thing is, though: convincing Siskind himself as well as his readers that “we are not the baddies” is one of the main purposes of his blog. He and his audience live in constant fear of being
exposedsmeared as bigots, so they need repeated reassurance that, actually, it’s the SJWs who are evil, so any attempts by SJWs tocriticizecancel them for their views are illegitimate. So, by the time Metz first approached Siskind for the article, he and his audience were primed to see it as the beginning of their long-awaited existential struggle with the enemy. It’s this framing, one which they constructed for themselves and henceforth could no longer see out of, which led them to commit such a series of bewildering overreactions that ultimately served only to prove just how batshit they all are.Are we a joke to you? Wait… shit well that is a painful moment of self awareness.
E: whatever you do, don’t read the comments. People still defending Scott in the ageold rational ways. ‘Sure context matters, but what if it didn’t?’. ‘correction a palantir isnt’ saurons all seeing eye’, ‘lets discuss what a doxx is’, ‘why shouldn’t we dox journalists?’ (??) etc.
I think this is one of my favorite takes so far on the whole ordeal. Also, even though I disagree with him about the importance of there being anonymity online for people who want it, his counterargument makes a lot of sense and I think it’s something I should consider more.
(The reason I think it’s a lot more important than he’s saying because I want that kind of protection for anyone with any kind of controversial or unpopular ideas– which includes left-wing activists that I very much support, and sometimes myself when I’m talking about transgender issues. I’m totally OK with my employer and people in real life knowing that I’m trans, but I wouldn’t want my employer to know everything I’ve ever said about being transgender and trans issues.)
I am in the minority on this board in that I appreciate his defense of real-ish journalism. But I think he is being waaaay too charitable to Scott and his cronies. With the recent email exposure, I don’t see how anyone can in good conscience give Scott even a sliver of benefit of doubt. He is a capital L Lying capital S Slimeball through and through and trying to empathize with him is a waste of energy.
Well, that’s where you’ve lost most of the people you’re trying to persuade, I think. I remember a long time ago, when I used to waste time talking to them, I had to ask some Rationalists whether a random article about tuning out of the news entirely and just listening to a police scanner was satire or not. It was not and they were offended at the question.
this is from a libertarian who worked with the GMU libertarians and read rationalist blogs since it was just Robin Hanson, btw
This piece is long, and honestly I’ll probably not bother to finish reading it because I have more useful things to do like sleep, but I do have one question:
Do any of these motherfuckers ever look around at the groups that they self identify with and say “holy shit, you all are awful people, maybe I shouldn’t identify with y’all”?
his defence of nyt is kinda cringe ngl
Do we think this will get discussed in the slatestar nebula at all?