SneerClub

989 readers

1 users here now

Hurling ordure at the TREACLES, especially those closely related to LessWrong.

AI-Industrial-Complex grift is fine as long as it sufficiently relates to the AI doom from the TREACLES. (Though TechTakes may be more suitable.)

This is sneer club, not debate club. Unless it's amusing debate.

[Especially don't debate the race scientists, if any sneak in - we ban and delete them as unsuitable for the server.]

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

SlateScott talking race and IQ: very cool and truth seeking. Revealing SlateScott's powerword: what's the public interest in that? (www.lesswrong.com)

submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

22 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The actually not even really a hatchet job NYT piece on SlateScott that mostly just called him a weird little guy has nonetheless created a festering psychic wound that oozes to this day. Here manifests as an interview with the author on LW. See also: discussion on reddit.

My favorite section, talking about how people are mad that be brought up Scott's notorious race stuff™️:

CM: That's great. That's a valid position. There are other valid positions where people say, we need to not go so close to that, because it's dangerous and there's a slippery slope. The irony of this whole situation is that some people who feel that I should not have gone there, who think I should not explore the length and breadth of that situation, are the people who think you should always go there.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Wait. Why the fuck is that weirdo talking to Cade Metz? What the hell is going on here!?!

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago

I'd really like to know the back story on this interview too. I realize weirdness isn't exactly distinctive when it comes to rationalists, but Zack is in a league of his own.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

loved how Metz is literally just explaining his job in terms that make obvious sense, and the commenters go off to construct a stupendous conspiracy theory

also, like. we have the email where Scott confesses that he started SSC to promote reactionary ideas and race science. Zack has even posted about said email.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (2 children)

That being said, Metz is just wrong about journalism here:

> "And whatever people think, my job at the Times is to give everyone their due, and to give everyone's point of view a forum and help them get that point of view into any given story"

The job of the NYT is not even remotely to give every POV a forum, unless he is very clumsily saying "my job is to request comment from the subject of an article."

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago

minor point of order (and a little riff): they are talking about their job at the Times, which might be a whole other kettle of fish going by their recent track record

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago

I feel like "giving everyone their due" is one thing, as long as it's tempered by the recognition that not every perspective is due equal respect, or that certain perspectives are due a large disclaimer about how factual consensus completely disagrees.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Unbelievable kill shot, how the fuck did Davis leave it on this? Some secret agenda to hand Metz a fuckin’ victory wreath? Does he think this makes Metz look bad?

CM: What his argument to me was is that it violated the ethics of his profession. But that's his issue, not mine, right? He chose to be a super-popular blogger and to have this influence as a psychiatrist. His name—when I sat down to figure out his name, it took me less than five minutes. It's just obvious what his name is. The New York Times ceases to serve its purpose if we're leaving out stuff that's obvious. That's just how we have to operate. Our aim—and again, the irony is that your aim is similar—is to tell people the truth, and have them understand it. If we start holding stuff back, then that quickly falls apart.

I get that out front Davis’s whole thing is total transparency, but if that’s really all that’s going on here, how did it not end on something utterly banal? How is this orbital homerun the end of the conversation?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

A rat scoring an own goal shouldn't be surprising, and a rat, especially ZMD, not understanding how to edit should also not be surprising.