No, he didn’t. He shared the subjective impression which led him to stop the research, but not the results, or even the methodology used to classify content.
Also, civility is not the same as not having abhorrent ideas written up in nice language.
different groups of people flags those for different reasons.
- some flag them because they want to keep all politics out of HN
- some just don't like people arguing
- some flag them because of that guy who invariably will bring out JD as an example that sexism goes the other way too (or to say that it mostly goes the other way even)
- some flag them because from their point of view it looks like women have an easier life in IT in men. (This is not generally correct, but to someone who realizes that there are serious KPIs, bonuses and pats on the back to be had for recruiting women in certain companies it might easily look that way. The flip side being they are often treated like decoration instead of like engineers.)
There are some really big issues to tackle in this space but so many people are so busy accusing the other side while simultaneously shutting their ears that I too will soon start flagging them. I'll also admit to having been part of this problem (the shouting part of it before.)
- someone who was always well liked with everyone but is slowly admitting that the other side had some valid points as well.
For sure terrible comments appear. The false part is to say that they're representative of the community—they're not. Commenters with opposite views notice opposite examples, claim those are the representative ones, and are just as wrong. I've mentioned just one counterexample chosen at random, but could as easily link to 50, and another 50 on your side.
Most such posts get downvoted and/or flagged, though it takes a while for the immune system to work. More here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23686864
Also, tptacek is fairly far to the left it seems (in an American context) so it actually surprised me quite a bit that he'd write that.
Based on that last observation I think most of us can agree, can't we?
While in the modern US there is a common (and increasingly strong) correlation on average between political attitudes toward race and gender and the left/right economic axis, there is nothing strongly inherent about that. Racism and sexism on the left are not at all unheard of.
(I don't see any evidence that tptacek is a racist or sexist, I just don't think “hey, he's left-of-American-center, so if he says HN is clear of racism/sexism, it must be the case” is even approximately a reasonable position.)
But, in any case, his own description seems to repeatedly focus on explicit misogynistic or white supremacists content, so even were we to take it as gospel it is perfectly consistent with HN being filled with the kind of urbane circumlocution that is frequently used to provide a thin veneer of not-all-that-plausible-in-aggregate deniability over bigoted attitudes.
HN is in a weird place today, very similar to where the Slate Star Codex guy was a few years ago. That is, racist Whites seem to feel safe commenting here (with appropriate dog whistles and what not), but you wonder how long that can last…
In the end, the SSC guy banned more and more commenters but it wasn't sufficient to save him and he ended up deleting his blog [0] when the world turned its eyes to the kinds of discussions he allowed. I expect the same to happen with HN.
dang does a good job keeping people on-message politically (and I'm sure tptacek did as well), but being "racist-adjacent"—which HN absolutely is [1]—isn't a long-term viable position.
Someday soon I expect the racist-adjacent user-banning to kick into high gear on HN (like SSC did) but it will be too little, too late. Eventually, HN will inevitably shut down—and it might be sooner than any of us think.
[0] https://slatestarcodex.com/
[1] This is from an hour ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23683033
This is likely why above poster says "racist-adjacent" and not racist-friendly.
I have no particular opinion on HN, but I have noticed that the tech community in general is usually not the most politics-aware group. This makes us pretty vulnerable to this kind of behaviour.
That isn't why he deleted it. He deleted it because the NYT was threatening to publish his real name in a way that would make it untenable for him to continue to practice psychiatry.
> [1] This is from an hour ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23683033
To reduce criticism of SPLC to "racism" isn't helping the health of discourse here.
"The SPLC is a hate group" is considered healthy, valid criticism to you, coming from an account which then said that "hate speech against white people has been normalized in our society for some time now" and linked to The Bell Curve as proof for the superiority of the white race, but referring to them as "racist-adjacent" is unacceptably reductionist?
Whatever "racist-adjacent" means, clearly it must mean "not actually racist" because if it was racist, I'm sure you would call that.
I'm doubtful you will convince anyone with that argument: perhaps not even yourself.
Now, if you think the statement "the SPLC is a hate group" is false that's fine. I think there is a debate that is worth having here on HN - especially when tech companies are using the SPLC's hate list to justify their deplatforming decisions. In my opinion, the SPLC's use of defamation and fear-mongering for profit make the statement perfectly justified.
Calling it "racist" or "racist-adjacent" is a rhetorical attack that does not serve the purpose of mutual enlightenment. "Racist-adjacent" strikes me as particularly insidious since implicit in that label is the admission that the thing being labeled is not actually racist.
That's... not what happened? He's explicitly stated that he deleted his blog due to the fact that the NYT are planning on doxxing him in a story about SSC. He's fine with the story itself, and the attention garnered, but does not want his name attached to it and announced to the world via one of America's most popular newspapers due to his work as a psychiatrist. As far as I'm aware, this is not because SSC contains comments about right wing views or anything, but more due to an intent to maintain his privacy to his patients, which he believes will improve their quality of care.
If you think I'm incorrect in the above interpretation, feel free to disagree.
I'm ambivalent about his decision, but it was definitely his to make and probably is in the best interest of his patients (and himself)—at least in the short-term. The world, however, has lost a really good blog and community.
I'd love to see clear evidence about the reporter clearly looking to get Scott cancelled. The scare quotes on "reporter" are unnecessary.
I'm sad that the blog is down. "Categories are for man" is an essay/lens that I find very valuable. I hope the situation resolves with the blog being up and the NYT not doxxing Scott.
Here's an example of the NYT providing anonymity to a therapist with a political blog in 2015: https://twitter.com/s8mb/status/1275436187713286144
Here's the NYT protecting the anonymity of female gamers to protect them from harassment (on the same day that Scott took down his blog): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23619347
There are other examples, but those strike me as the most related to Scott's circumstances. It's not proof per se, but it severely undermines the credibility of the statement that it would be against NYT policy to grant the same protections to Scott.
Scott's attempt to spin it as a positive story in his farewell letter is, I think, an attempt to both influence the NYT in that direction, but also to keep the focus on the doxxing, and not on why SSC might be controversial. He's trying to keep that part out of the public debate entirely, which seems smart.
Also: I'm sorry you're being downvoted so badly, I don't think it's deserved.
Woah, really? That's bad.
> Scott's attempt to spin it as a positive story in his farewell letter is, I think, an attempt to both influence the NYT in that direction, but also to keep the focus on the doxxing, and not on why SSC might be controversial. He's trying to keep that part out of the public debate entirely, which seems smart.
That's actually a pretty reasonable interpretation, and probably flips the script in a way that they weren't prepared for. A couple days ago the NYT ran a piece begging people not to cancel their subscriptions. I didn't read the piece to see if it reference SSC, so it could just be a coincidence, but I know there was the #ghostnyt campaign on Twitter in response Scott closing his blog.
The Daily Beast also reported that some of the staff internally at the NYT (mostly the tech folks) were rather irate at learning (from Hacker News, no less) about the planned doxxing of Scott.
> Also: I'm sorry you're being downvoted so badly, I don't think it's deserved.
Thank you. It's really not that bad and my net karma is actually up quite a bit overall from this thread, but kind words and interesting arguments matter more to me than votes. I won't speculate as to the motivation behind the downvotes, and they won't change my opinions, but I do treat them as an opportunity to look at how I could improve the usefulness of my comments here.
Still don't think that construes sufficient evidence to claim that this current situation is intended to cancel Scott, or that the NYT's policy is to cancel people who post politically. I don't think Scott was against an article being written about SSC, only that it will contain his name. I'm happy if you think that it can be pieced together from his previous statements, but I don't think there's sufficient evidence presented here.
Obviously, if Scott is fired from where he works, he can't continue to treat his current patients—so that's where the harm to "his ability to practice and treat his patients" come in.
He didn't lay all of that out explicitly in his farewell post on SSC, but it's fully consistent with what he wrote—if you're aware of the history of his employment concerns and the likely result of the NYT article sending a bunch of low-info culture warriors after him personally as a result.
People can disagree about his motives, of course. For me, the above is most consistent with everything Scott's written previously, as well as the final farewell post.
Someone wrote something really interesting here somewhere a couple of days ago:
every time a non-racist says something not correct enough or God forbid even wrong (e.g. on twitter), they are ejected into the other camp. Eventually the other camp's grown from a fringe phenomenon to being noticeably large and everyone laments.
HN routinely votes down to the max all kinds of mainstream and legitimate viewpoints that aren't "white nationalism" but aren't supportive of globalism either. Literally any criticism of the EU will hit -4 within hours regardless of how grounded in facts it is. Given the rhetoric that often accompanies that topic, without a doubt some people consider any criticism of the EU institutions or ideologies to be some sort of racist zealotry, although it's utterly mainstream throughout Europe.
You understand that when you speak of "globalism" this way, you place yourself as a member of a tiny, if vocal, minority.
Hacker News has a lot of sophisticated, intelligent people from all over the world and that's why fringe political beliefs aren't common. I would add that the collegial atmosphere here means people are unsupportive of naked aggression and anger, which also seems to be a common component of fringe political beliefs.
If it's important for you to criticize the EU and have people listen to you, there are plenty of places to go for that.
My personal belief about the EU is that it like all political systems is flawed and could certainly do with constructive criticism, but has managed to deliver a high standard of living, personal rights, some degree of income equality and even happiness to its citizens for decades now and do it better than any other.
This is why I personally left the United States after thirty years to move to Europe.
Obviously you're entitled to your view on the EU, but your attitude is why EU supporters lost in the UK and would lose in other countries in the unlikely event their political systems would ever give them a true choice on the matter. You cannot handle genuine, well reasoned, intelligent and sophisticated criticism of the EU so simply try to suppress it.
That mistake is how the EU's supporters in the UK got their asses kicked, despite having way more resources and the full support of the entire global establishment on their side. They thought all "intelligent, sophisticated" people agreed with them ... because they'd shouted down or suppressed everyone who disagreed. They were then shocked to discover that their arguments were deemed incredibly weak by the large section of the population that hadn't already made up their minds.
That's what happens when you deplatform those you disagree with. They don't go away. They keep refining their arguments where you can't see it, and then if one day you go head to head with them - you lose.
Trump soundly lost the popular vote. Read up on the electoral college if you're curious; it's a doozy
(I used to consider myself a "cautious/mild euroskeptic" up until the referendum, at which point I've become a hard-remainer)
Suppose two people are talking. The first says, "Minority X children score below the national average on IQ tests. I bet it's because minority X children are more likely to be exposed to lead in tapwater. Our country should have an all-hands on deck effort to solve the lead-in-tapwater problem" The other responds: "I am not interested in any discussion that begins with 'minority X children score below...'. You are a racist for saying this and I don't listen to policy proposals from racists".
Which of these two is the racist? By the modern definition, it's clearly the second, because he's arguing for a status quo that disadvantages minority X. Whether his heart is in the right place or not, he's contributing to systemic oppression by refusing to act in the face of injustice and therefore a racist. By the classic definition, it's just as clearly the first because he is asserting a difference between races. Whether his heart is in the right place or not, he's deepening racial divisions by this rhetoric and therefore a racist.
Hopefully we can agree on those definitions, if not the rest of this comment is pointless. Regardless, and assuming we can, let's bring this to the topic at hand.
African-Americans are Molyneux's 'Minority X' and child corporal punishment is his 'lead-in-tapwater'. Let's see first how he fares by the modern definition of racism. The wrinkle here might be that lead in tapwater is done to a population while corporal punishment is done by a population. This might seem to make it apples and oranges, but I'd disagree. Anyone who wished could make the case that higher rates of corporal punishment are self-evidently fallout from the abuses of colonialism, and done to the African-American population no less than leaded tapwater.
What's the standard under this definition for determining whether a person is a racist? I would propose the following two tests: if their professed beliefs are sincerely held, and if their proposals would lessen inequality assuming their premise is correct, then that person is not a racist. They may be mistaken in their premises, but in that case it is up to other non-racists to educate them, and there is no use for hostility in that process. By that standard, how does Molyneux fare? I think his life provides ample evidence that his beliefs were sincerely held. He became a public intellectual and subjected himself to ongoing, harsh criticism because he believed it was important people hear his ideas. He spoke often about corporal punishment of children and not once did he vary his message. As to the second test, if his premise is correct that higher rates of corporal punishment lead to worse education outcomes for African Americans, then it's fairly obvious that his proposal of no corporal punishment anywhere would help close the gap. Having listened to him speak, I genuinely believe that if his proposal was accepted and the result was that his children faced tougher competition for jobs and scholarships, he would consider it the best possible outcome and validation of his beliefs. So by that standard, I would definitively judge him 'not racist'.
Of course, Molyneux never made any of these arguments because like most people born before 1982, he would use the classical definition of racism and probably refuse to cede the linguistic territory necessary to make any of the foregoing arguments. The way to not be racist by the classical definition is much simpler and requires no arguments about colonial fallout. One must simply start the argument by saying 'inner city children...' instead of 'minority x children...' and one's thoughts on race are one's own affair. The trouble with that approach is, people born after 1982 immediately start shouting about dog whistles and secret racism, and one finds oneself isolated with people who increasingly egg one on to just name the races in question. I believe this is what happened with Molyneux. When I first encountered him, he seemed to be making a good-faith effort to talk about specific demographics instead of the races over represented in them. By the time I lost interest in his content, I must admit, he was no longer making that effort nor did the bulk of his audience want him to.
So on deeper reflection, I think it was a bit disingenuous of me to judge Molyneux only by one set of standards. By what is probably his own definition of racism - and though I'm conversant in both linguistic systems, the definition I use in private thought - he did commit racism. My only excuse is that I cede linguistic territory as instinctively as Molyneux would defend it, and it didn't occur to me much harm could be done thereby. I'll walk my statement back and say that Molyneux weaponized racism for an agenda that, had it succeeded, would have reduced racial inequality.
I have seen downvoted replies that nonsensically infer racism in a post. I suspect that's how I would describe what you're thinking of.
Someone saying that black communities should be more policed by dogwhistling that disproportionate crime warrants "assertion of police presence and predictive policing" by willfully misinterpreting statistics is racist, even if it doesn't explicitly say that black people should be harassed by police.
This is self-contradictory. You state that you have never seen explicitly racists posts here, but then you state the exceptions of "obvious trolling or spam". How does a racist post being "obvious trolling" make it not-racist? How does a racist post being spam make it not-racist? Racism abounds in trolling and spam. Spam and trolling are similarly havens for racism.
> Implicitly racist posts are usually downvoted.
That's not my experience.
...and they will be voted down quickly.
> And people denouncing white nationalists will be voted down.
Examples please :-)
The closest thing I can come up with is when I kind of reliably get downvoted every time I say I'd support a ban on nazis but that seems to be die hard free speech people, not nazis.
The post you replied to was downvoted and flagkilled until I vouched for it. Every post from me in this thread is or has been graytext. Too many other examples just in this thread to enumerate or counteract.
On HN, all of the 'free speech' stories I see always pertain to the far-right and/or incredibly vitriolic individuals getting removed from platforms. They receive massive amounts of votes and spur on large flamewars. HackerNews unfortunately is just as prone to falling into certain narrative traps as other websites and one of them that seems to come up more and more frequently is free speech and individual rights but only as it pertains to the far-right.
With my first story I figured it would fit well with the people that tend to advocate for personal rights because it was an example of an American citizen being wrongfully detained for three weeks, but it ended up flagged because I think people tend to circle the wagon around anything tangentially related to immigration.
The second example was about a direct example of government censorship and the inconsistency of free speech advocates. Google's actions and bending to China for the sake of maintaining profitable behavior is bad, yes, but they also are not the government. The government should be held to even higher standards and yet it seems people are not willing to do so for this administration. An example of that is that people here were praising the administration's threats against Twitter as some sort of pro-freedom move.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21517722
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12494998
That's because getting people shut down, cancelled, censored, is a left wing tactic, so of course it always seems to be the right getting censored. Free speech is a value the right hold and the left do not, systematically so throughout history.
I come here to get away from the shouty people. You seem upset people here won't let you get shouty. I disagree.
Many of the people who raise objections based on “free speech” every time a private entity declines to actively participate in amplifying right wing speech have been actively cheering the events you describe, and arguing they need to be intensified, not sitting silent.
Which is it? :P
I agree with him to a large degree:
I personally see mostly problematic content from the left[0] but I guess that is partly my bias.
[0]: for example this comment earlier today that I thought[1] was absolutely crazy "I don't want to participate in spaces where religious white nationalists feel safe" - just try to turn that phrase around to "I don't want to participate in spaces where atheistic colored globalists feel safe" and see if it wouldn't be flagged to death immediately by everyone including me.)
[1]: someone had to tell me that this is basically an euphemism for nazi, to which I had to reply that I would prefer if we just said nazi then because then I could join in despising it.
VS
> "I don't want to participate in spaces where atheistic colored globalists feel safe"
The weight there is different though, in the groups you analyse the violence has historically flown in one direction more than in the other. I am inclined to think that there have been historically much less concerns of safety for "religious white nationalists" than for "theistic colored globalists"
I think you are wildly underestimating the violence of a number of non-religious groups: recommended reading includes the reign of terror, Stalin and Khmer Rouge.
... and also non-whites by the way.
I prefer to call nazis "nazis". It is short and simple and we can all agree that we don't like them.
Actual Nazis are rare. They were rare during WW2 and they're really rare now.
People say white nationalist instead of Nazi because white nationalists will always deny being Nazis. Someone being nationalist for a race should immediately bring up red flags. There are also small differences. For example some white nationalists are not necessarily antisemitic, which is a characteristic of Nazis, or might even support Israel (though you can be pro-Israel and antisemitic of course), instead focusing their hate on black people, Muslims, etc...
Where do you get that religious thing from? Because for all their faults all major variants of the mainstream religion in US and Europe is pretty clear about not supporting that -to the point that a number of clergy got in real trouble with nazi Germany.
Also yes, while a lot of religious people are very good, the religious people that also happen to be white nationalists tend to be even worse than the garden variety white nationalist.
This makes literally no sense.
I read your linked piece but came to the opposite conclusions you posted here. Reading tptacek's comment indicates to me that he thinks HN's tolerance of white supremacist content is unacceptable ("I don't believe the status quo is really acceptable...")
I also wonder about his criteria for selecting what is white supremacist content and what is not. Most of the content I see on HN that I consider white supremacist or racist content is written in the form of dog whistles and not overt statements. I personally think the prevalence of that content on HN is somewhat higher than tptacek was catching.
Just FTR we are pretty far from accepting the far right here on HN:
tptacek shared some interesting research he'd done a couple of hours ago and it might be of interest to everyone here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23681929