<story><title>Silicon Valley’s Safe Space</title><url>https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/13/technology/slate-star-codex-rationalists.html</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>yesenadam</author><text>Such a badly-written, mean-spirited article. A typical paragraph has a few ominous claims, which, when you read the links, aren&amp;#x27;t supported at all, nor connected in the way they&amp;#x27;re suggested to. Such as :&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; In one post, he aligned himself with Charles Murray, who proposed a link between race and I.Q. in “The Bell Curve.” In another, he pointed out that Mr. Murray believes Black people “are genetically less intelligent than white people.”&lt;p&gt;And when you read the linked page[0], what Scott writes concerning Murrary seems perfectly inoffensive. He divides political views into quadrants, Competitive&amp;#x2F;Collective vs Optimistic&amp;#x2F;Pessimistic, then says &amp;quot;The only public figure I can think of in the [Collective + Pessimistic quadrant] with me is Charles Murray.&amp;quot; This is what is described as aligning himself with Murray. The paragraph makes Scott sound like a flaming racist. It&amp;#x27;s just totally dishonest writing. It&amp;#x27;s hard to believe they&amp;#x27;re arguing in good faith there, but who knows.&lt;p&gt;The anonymity thing seems to have been well and truly discarded – flung in his face, more like. What did he do to them to deserve such treatment, such contempt?&lt;p&gt;I did get one laugh, out of:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; “[Rationalists] are basically just hippies who talk a lot more about Bayes’ theorem than the original hippies,” said Scott Aaronson&lt;p&gt;[0] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;slatestarcodex.com&amp;#x2F;2016&amp;#x2F;05&amp;#x2F;23&amp;#x2F;three-great-articles-on-poverty-and-why-i-disagree-with-all-of-them&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;slatestarcodex.com&amp;#x2F;2016&amp;#x2F;05&amp;#x2F;23&amp;#x2F;three-great-articles-o...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>matthewdgreen</author><text>&amp;gt; And when you read the linked page[0], what Scott writes concerning Murrary seems perfectly inoffensive. He divides political views into quadrants, Competitive&amp;#x2F;Collective vs Optimistic&amp;#x2F;Pessimistic, then says &amp;quot;The only public figure I can think of in the [Collective + Pessimistic quadrant] with me is Charles Murray.&amp;quot; This is what is described as aligning himself with Murray.&lt;p&gt;Well there&amp;#x27;s some more in that paragraph you quote. He then goes on to say &amp;quot;Neither he nor I would dare reduce &lt;i&gt;all&lt;/i&gt; class differences to heredity, and [Murray] in particular has some very sophisticated theories about class and culture.&amp;quot; (Emphasis kept from the original.) Which I think the NYT writer reads as being at least a partial endorsement of Murray&amp;#x27;s belief that some class differences reduce to heredity. I do too, since this seems roughly in line with what I understand from Scott&amp;#x27;s writing. It is also true that Murray takes that idea farther and goes in some directions I find to be both scientifically unsupported and inflammatory.&lt;p&gt;You can agree or disagree with the NYT here, I don&amp;#x27;t care. But I think you should quote more from that paragraph before you characterize it.</text></comment>
<story><title>Silicon Valley’s Safe Space</title><url>https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/13/technology/slate-star-codex-rationalists.html</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>yesenadam</author><text>Such a badly-written, mean-spirited article. A typical paragraph has a few ominous claims, which, when you read the links, aren&amp;#x27;t supported at all, nor connected in the way they&amp;#x27;re suggested to. Such as :&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; In one post, he aligned himself with Charles Murray, who proposed a link between race and I.Q. in “The Bell Curve.” In another, he pointed out that Mr. Murray believes Black people “are genetically less intelligent than white people.”&lt;p&gt;And when you read the linked page[0], what Scott writes concerning Murrary seems perfectly inoffensive. He divides political views into quadrants, Competitive&amp;#x2F;Collective vs Optimistic&amp;#x2F;Pessimistic, then says &amp;quot;The only public figure I can think of in the [Collective + Pessimistic quadrant] with me is Charles Murray.&amp;quot; This is what is described as aligning himself with Murray. The paragraph makes Scott sound like a flaming racist. It&amp;#x27;s just totally dishonest writing. It&amp;#x27;s hard to believe they&amp;#x27;re arguing in good faith there, but who knows.&lt;p&gt;The anonymity thing seems to have been well and truly discarded – flung in his face, more like. What did he do to them to deserve such treatment, such contempt?&lt;p&gt;I did get one laugh, out of:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; “[Rationalists] are basically just hippies who talk a lot more about Bayes’ theorem than the original hippies,” said Scott Aaronson&lt;p&gt;[0] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;slatestarcodex.com&amp;#x2F;2016&amp;#x2F;05&amp;#x2F;23&amp;#x2F;three-great-articles-on-poverty-and-why-i-disagree-with-all-of-them&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;slatestarcodex.com&amp;#x2F;2016&amp;#x2F;05&amp;#x2F;23&amp;#x2F;three-great-articles-o...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>coldtea</author><text>&amp;gt;&lt;i&gt;Such a badly-written, mean-spirited article.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;The same attributes applies to most of current &amp;quot;hollier than thou&amp;quot; cancel articles. The principle of charity is totally lost, anything that an idiot can misread as offensive is labeled as so, and offensiveness itself is potrtrayed as the biggest crime.&lt;p&gt;The NYT is worse a rag than the National Enquirer, because at least the second is not perceived as some objective and quality source (and doesn&amp;#x27;t influence politics, or help setup trillion dollar wars and mass carnage).</text></comment>