Hacker News Reader

Comment by ahoyhere | Hacker News Reader

Did nobody notice the other articles linked at the bottom of this one? For example:

"Black Children Do Not Need a Western-style Education"

I, for one, would like to see a little bit more criticism of things being posted to HN, and their sources. Because once people know the HN push-button issues, unquestioning readers can be easily lured down the path to thinking and believing very nasty things.

Despite what the 'logical' HN cannon says, an author's background and intent actually matter very much. It may be popular on HN to assume that only facts matter, but I invite you to read the following piece to see how "facts" (real things that really happened) can be skewered by intent:

http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/hbd-human-biodive...

View on HN

I'm confused. How are facts skewered by intent?

The author cites an article at the NYT which points out that black children are suspended more than whites. He then points out that this suggests black children are more likely to exhibit behavior problems, hindering the education process for better behaved white children. He then advocates segregating black children from white children, except for the minority who have the aptitude for school.

His reasoning and data gathering process seems no worse than most newspaper columns (which are, in general, pretty bad). I don't agree with his conclusion since some of the values he is basing them on differ from mine, but that doesn't mean his facts are wrong.

So how, pray tell, has he skewered facts? And why does that mean we should ignore another author who shares a site with him?

He quoted an entire, extremely racist essay to support his point. That way he let somebody else argue in his stead, without getting his hands dirty. Example:

"Blacks are keenly interested in their own racial characteristics."

"Blacks break down the intimacy that can be achieved in the classroom"

"One point on which all blacks agree is that everything is “racis’.”"

"Anyone who teaches blacks soon learns that they have a completely different view of government from whites."

"Blacks are extraordinarily quick to take offense."

"But the real black is not on television..."

There's no way you can take these statements and say they are anything but flat-out racist. It's one thing to say "This is my experience in a certain school with black students" and it's another thing entirely to say "Blacks are." If the author is telling the truth, then he mentions many "facts" of his experience.

However, he doesn't settle for merely reporting it as his experience. He skewers those facts - with intent - into de-personalized blanket statements.

Which are clearly and irrefutably racist:

"Racism is the belief that race is a primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

Him allowing that there might be a few "specially sensitive blacks" doesn't excuse him from racism.

Now, again, the author of the "essay" in question quoted this other author more than at length -- he quoted him in full. While he studiously did not MENTION the entire essay length piece embedded in his blog post, he clearly condones it. There's no way around it: racist, of the highest degree.

You've convinced me that Alex Kurtagic is racist, which I never really doubted. You have yet to explain why pointing out this fact invalidates his reasoning, or the reasoning of Scott Locklin.

In fact, I don't think you even are trying to argue against his reasoning. I think you are instead attempting to lull us into a false sense of sharing an identity with you. And that, according to all kinds of psychological research, can end up with us conforming to your other ideals as well -- if we believe they go part and parcel together, we will, on some level, strive for consistency [1].

You are hoping that if we pay a lot of attention to Alex Kurtagic being racist, we will share an identity with you ("I'm not racist at all"). Then, based on a shared identity, we will assume that Scott Locklin's opinions must be wrong, without even examining the content of his argument.

I think HN is smarter than that [2].

[1] Yes, I did steal that paragraph.

[2] I realize I'm playing the same game ahoyhere is.

Indeed, it seems that whoever is running this site is willing to entertain or provide a platform for some highly toxic beliefs (i.e. racism).

Yes, to put it as inanely as possible. More importantly, they're willing to pander to certain "safe" beliefs in order to lure people in, by expressing things in a way that appeals to would-be intellectuals, using their terminology, and their commonplaces, to persuade them of not only highly toxic but fallacious conclusions.

It might be an idea to data mine submissions to HN to try to uncover if there are any special interest or extremist groups trying to gain leverage in this way by posting articles with relatively plausible titles.

Note: I don't literally mean that the author sat down to lure HN-ites in. Let's not flatter ourselves.

My point is that extremists in one area also hold non-extremist beliefs in other areas. That can lull you into a false sense of sharing an identity with them. And that, according to all kinds of psychological research, can end up with you conforming to their other ideals as well -- if you believe they go part and parcel together, you will, on some level, strive for consistency.

That's why you have to be aware of who's saying what, and why, and what you read, and how you feel about it.

That article you linked to was not written by Scott Locklin, in case you haven't noticed. Does the fact that an article is hosted at a crypto-racist website invalidate its thesis? Rhetorical. By the way, weeks ago Locklin's post on nanotech was upvoted to the upper stratosphere here on HN.

That particular article may not have been written by Scott Locklin, but a quick browse of his other works on the same site validates ahoyhere's point.

Regarding the nanotech article: http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/2010/09/scott... I was wondering myself why that article got so many upvotes.

"That particular article may not have been written by Scott Locklin, but a quick browse of his other works on the same site validates ahoyhere's point."

Oh, really? The burden of proof lies on your shoulders. More to the point: citation needed.

Considering he gave you 100% of the means you required to investigate it yourself, one can only come to the conclusion that you are a troll, not interested in truth, but only in gaining attention.

A couple of Scott's archived articles turned my stomach, Watermelon. Such as this piece, where he details his preference for foreign women, because they're more submissive, easily-flattered, and wear skirts:

http://www.alternativeright.com/main/the-magazine/the-case-f...

It's extremely revealing that he suggests Mel Gibson's attitude toward women as exemplary.

His articles on class structure expose a rather violent imagination about how best to conduct social intercourse:

"There are two ways of getting along with a lower class person at least to a limited extent. The first way is to beat the [expletive] out of them. They deserve it anyway, and most people lick the boots that kick them."

http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/zeitgeist/social-...

Good grief.

That's not "crypto" anything. You can't spell out "I'm racist" any more clearly than "But the real black is not on television, and you pull your purse closer when you see him..."

Or, by the direct author (and not the one wholly quoted), "It is clear that the few who purchased Black slaves in their day made a lamentable choice." -- and he doesn't mean that, oh, I don't know, slavery is immoral. He means it was a lamentable choice because the goods were bad apples that now will spoil the bunch.

Does this article's presence on the same site invalidate the thesis of another article? No. But does it put everything argued into question? Yes. Because there's no such thing as "the facts." You cannot ever have all the facts. The map is not the territory.

Therefore, you must the consider the motives of anyone who presents "facts" to you -- because they had to pick and choose, and could not represent all facts (map, territory), and why did they pick the ones they picked?

Dry-humping the idea of pure logic doesn't work in a non-platonic world where you can never, ever have all the facts. Context matters. Source matters. Motive, intent, and background matter -- a lot.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com