Comment by uyhso8 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by uyhso8 | Hacker News Reader

This whole thing strikes me as sad. The argument could have gone an entirely different way.

Taleb blasts the nature and tone of the argument, concluding "scholarship is dead in the UK,"(https://medium.com/incerto/something-is-broken-in-the-uk-int...) but the irony is that if it's ending, it's ending in part because of behavior such as his.

I actually agree in general with his perspective on the cartoon, but found his behavior unacceptable. The other side of the argument isn't unreasonable, even if you conclude it's maybe not the best side of the argument.

In some ways it doesn't matter, but I'm getting tired of the right setting up this dynamic where they engage in ad hominem bullshit, and then act offended when other side responds. I say this as someone who often identifies with the right--it's alienating and pushes reasonable people away. Rather than apologizing about not being respectful of Professor Beard, he becomes defensive and somehow tries to rationalize it.

Next time Taleb, could you please just take the high road in your behavior? Even if the other side is totally full of shit, and acting inappropriately, you'll look better and everyone will win by being the better one. I even agree with you and you've turned me off of your own damn arguments.

Jeez.

Taleb is correct to call out this cartoon as the politically correct nonsense that it is. A saner society might agree with him and ask itself why, in the current day, history needs to be rewritten to be completely fictitious.

Taleb's persona, however, does not lend itself well to open debate over such issues, as he champions himself as being a lone iconoclast against the "IYIs". All we can do is enjoy the show, I guess.

> Taleb is correct to call out this cartoon as the politically correct nonsense that it is.

Agreed -- it's a bullshit attempt to re-write history.

> why, in the current day, history needs to be rewritten to be completely fictitious.

For example complaining the recent Dunkirk film has mostly white men in it... when that was true of the historical event it depicts.

If anything the need to distort history is even clearer now, since it can be employed in devastatingly effective media narratives

I'm here just to say I appreciate the irony of an economist calling someone a "BS vendor"

I'm not taking any sides here on the main debate! Quite the minefield!

But I did want to point out that a lot of The Black Swan - was about berating "other economists and their flawed theories". I feel he tries a lot to make it clear that he isn't an economist...

But I haven't read enough books on economics to know if this is what all economists like doing to each other.

PS: I really enjoyed that book and tried to absorb many lessons from it, but I gotta say "pop-risk" is a funny nickname for it.

> I'm getting tired of the right setting up this dynamic where they engage in ad hominem bullshit

its not different than the way the left attacks people as: racist, homophobe, mysangist, uneducated, hillbilly, etc.

the last one i find quite interesting, a party that is supposed to stand against stereotypes, labeling, and skin color references uses hillbilly / red neck a lot.

Calling someone out for being racist or bigoted in some other should be acceptable, because that behavior is not acceptable. Preventing people from being called out on their bigotry is tolerating intolerance, and we shouldn't have any of that.

I do agree it is not a real rebuttal if the other side has a point unrelated to their bigotry.

Well not only that, but it's also like saying that an officer using force should be acceptable. It's true, but it doesn't mean that it's the only way to handle a situation, and often, claims of racism and bigotry are used to end an argument as if it were an argument itself. I'm not saying that "the left always does that", but each side had their share of desperate ad hominem attacks, and racism accusations is one often used by those on the left (though on the right it's used, just either reworded, or subtly redefined).

thats exactly what i am saying

> Calling someone out for being racist [...] should be acceptable

If someone actually is racist. Not if someone is merely disagreeing with SJWs.

I agree with this. We also need to understand that some people are too easy to offend and not worry about offending them while keeping in mind some people are legitimately the victims of racism.

It should not be something we make a knee-jerk reaction on. Real racism should be opposed and we should find a way to persuade people that playing the delicate snowflake victim card is also not appropriate.

There are two types of people who are racists. Those who are racists, who already think you're an idiot, and those who are not who will then think you are an idiot.

As ever, calling people names just gets you universally thought of as an idiot.

So don't do it.

1) Anything not politically correct is bigoted.

2) Anything bigoted is unacceptable.

3) Anything I find unacceptable should be beaten down with ad hominim attacks instead of properly heard out and debated.

Got it.

While bigotry is generally a bad thing, the calling out has long since past any usefulness. The terms have been weaponized beyond any usefulness, and will probably lose their sting.

You literally call out "the left" for bigotry in the same sentence in which you complain about them calling people out for bigotry.

How can you square this logically?

"The Left" is not a party.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com