[valar_m]

What's funny is that the line you thought you cherry-picked as a gotcha actually tells the story:

> abandon the idea that the value of people lies in their attributes

For anyone reading, the "attribute" that the racist author is referring to is the intelligence of non-white people, which the racist author says is inferior to whites.

[tb_technical]

It wasn't cherry picked. It was the concluding paragraph.

Additionally, nowhere in the essay does the author say that other ethnic groups are inferior to whites. In fact, it's only mentioned, tangentially, and not expanded upon, that different groups have different average IQs.

As an aside: If someone reaches the correct answer for the wrong reasons, are they wrong? Personally, I'm pragmatic, and don't care how people reach my ideals on the proper treatment of people.

[valar_m]

> As an aside: If someone reaches the correct answer for the wrong reasons, are they wrong? Personally, I'm pragmatic, and don't care how people reach my ideals on the proper treatment of people.

Forgot to respond to this part in my other reply so I'll just create a new one.

The entire purpose of the article is to promote anti-Semitic and racist ideas with thinly veiled dog whistles. The author isn't reaching the same conclusion as you at all - their intention is to promote hatred.

That's the whole point of a dog whistle - to promote hate and discrimination to those who would be receptive while maintaining some sliver of deniability.

It's frustrating to see that it worked so well on you in this particular case, but it's a good reminder of how effective dog whistling can be.

[tb_technical]

It didn't "work" on me. I read the article, picked up on the fact that this guy's is probably conservative, and was pleasantly surprised by the conclusion he drew to the problem of AI making intelligence obsolete.

I can form my own opinions, without people like you insinuating that I've been manipulated.

[valar_m]

What do you mean it didn't work on you? You're defending an article written by someone who promotes indisputably anti-Semitic conspiracy theories[0].

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38439602

[valar_m]

I'm going to operate under the assumption that you're replying in good faith and truly don't recognize the racist and anti-Semitic dog whistles all throughout the article. I'll highlight some of them for you.

Btw, if you aren't familiar with dog whistles, read this first: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics)

Here is an anti-Semitic dog whistle that promotes the conspiracy theory that Jews control the media:

>Working with journalists was an enlightening experience. There were some amazing people, but I found many to be arrogant and self-centered. It was frustrating to me that such people were the gatekeepers that millions of people got their news on the world through.

The uses of "arrogant" and "self-centered" are dog whistles for anti-Semitic tropes about Jews being elitists and selfish, respectively, and the part about them being gatekeepers of the news refers to the anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that Jews control the media.

Here we have two dog whistles in one sentence:

>I had gotten used to the fake politeness and backstabbing at the newspaper.

The "fake politeness" line is an anti-Semitic dog whistle intended to promote the idea of Jews being sneaky and untrustworthy. The word "backstabbing" is a dog whistle for the anti-Semitic Stab-in-the-back myth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_myth

Here is the author getting a little more explicit about what they're talking about:

>After the 2020 “racial reckoning” we saw the rapid increase in new social policies based on this logic.

Here is another dog whistle where the author refers to a person with a traditionally Jewish last name, which they directly associate with having secret evil intentions and hidden political power:

>In additional, activist public intellectuals such as Stephen J Gould sold a willing public on beliefs that were based less on science than egalitarian hopes and dreams.

These explanations have their merit, but I think they are too kind for assuming good intentions. Throughout human history, the powerful have sought to mystify the source of their power, whether it be through religion, divine mandate or royal inheritance.

I could go on, the article is absolutely full of racist and anti-Semitic dog whistles. Do you really not see them?

[systemstops]

You are reading way too much into what I was saying. I honestly couldn't say if the people I worked with were Jewish or not - it's not something that crossed my mind. Growing up in Southern California, the only difference I noticed between myself and Jewish friends was that they celebrated Hanukkah instead of Christmas. I honesty didn't even know there was such as thing as Jewish ethnicity until I was in my 30s - I just thought it was another religion.

My essay briefly touches on the fact there are are IQ testing gaps between groups. I'm sure you know that these gaps are one of the primary explanations for Jewish overrepresentation in technical and intellectual fields. A honest appraisal of the situation instead of denial and attacking people who notice things would by hugely beneficial to everyone.

[valar_m]

This is a textbook example of the typical response when someone gets their dog whistles called out. Plausible deniability is a key characteristic of dog whistles[0]. The first sentence is as predictable as the sun coming up tomorrow:

>You are reading way too much into what I was saying.

Note also that he ignores every single point that I made in the post he is responding to. Not a single one is addressed. You see, he is nervous because he has been caught, and he is hoping to distance himself from the anti-Semitic venom he was previously so eager to spew.

My friend, since you did indeed ignore every point I made, why don't you take a shot at addressing some of them now?

Also, you never responded to my questions about the comment you made referencing some group of mysterious, powerful people that you seem to think are working in the shadows to attack Musk:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38440280

Btw, feel free to skip the part of your essay where you argue that AI is going to cause white people to lose their jobs to non-whites because it will soon allow them to perform jobs they were previously intellectually incapable of performing. I think we all get the gist, no need to go into it further:

>The cognitively gifted have suddenly found their opportunities more limited if they are White or Asian

>What will the world look like when all the unwashed masses each have their own 130+ IQ assistant in their pocket to help them with daily tasks?

(He really did say that: https://systemstops.substack.com/p/the-smart-apocalypse)

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics)

[systemstops]

That essay had nothing at all do with Jewish people, so I don't want to respond to each of the points. Instead, I will just give you an honest appraisal of my views to answer your questions. Regarding Musk, I was referring to the ADL, Media Matters, political parties and other orgs that have been angry at his lifting of speech restrictions. And yes, some Jewish orgs have been major players in pushing for internet censorship (out in the open - not in the shadows). I don't see any problem with criticizing any politically organized group of people that is pushing their agenda on me. Why are Jewish groups immune from criticism? Imagine a Mormon civil rights org that worked directly with social media companies to censor content, and that many Mormon people were heavily involved in pro-Mormon political orgs (such as supporting a Mormon ethno-state in the Middle East). Now, imagine that any time someone criticized "the Mormons" that someone would accuse them of spreading anti-Mormon conspiracy theories. Pretending that Jews aren't one of the most politically active groups is just silly, which I hope you will agree.

Now a question for you: How does one critique this Jewish political activism phenomenon without being anti-Semitic? How would you do it?

Regarding my essay, my intent was to call out the hypocrisy of people that believe in equality, but only justify their belief based on very dubious scientific claims that all human population groups - after 50,000 years of separation, genetic bottlenecks, selection pressure and interbreeding with other sub-species such as Neanderthals and Denisovans - all have the exactly same brain characteristics. I was trying to say that high IQ people have been taking advantage of their "unearned" privilege in our modern society while denying that such privilege exists, and that this might be coming to an end with AI - and that my own personal experience proved to me that intelligence does not determine the value of a person. Therefore, to me, differences in average IQ between groups is completely irrelevant to their value as human beings, and that associating the value of people with their intelligence is morally wrong.

There has been a discourse on Twitter the last few days about whether or not Ashkenazi Jews have a much higher IQ than the white average. This posited as an explanation of the over-representation of Jews in things such as Fields medals, Nobel prizes, etc. What are your thoughts? [0] https://twitter.com/nathancofnas/status/1729562933238059235

[tb_technical]

Not really, no. I don't see them.

I'm a little preturbed, though. When the author talked about his time working with journalists, and when he described some of them negatively, you assumed he was talking about Jews.

When he talked about Stephen Gould, a widely read pop-sci academic, you zeroed in on his last name's "Jewish-ness".

It just seems like you're reading a lot into what he's saying, rather than what he's saying.

Also, FYI, on hacker news you're supposed to assume good faith.

[valar_m]

>When he talked about Stephen Gould, a widely read pop-sci academic, you zeroed in on his last name's "Jewish-ness".

Replying to this separately because I feel like you mischaracterized my point about Stephen Gould, and I think you're aware of that.

I did not simply zero in on his last name, as your comment says. I pointed out that the author directly links a Jewish person to having secret evil intentions and hidden political power:

>These explanations have their merit, but I think they are too kind for assuming good intentions. Throughout human history, the powerful have sought to mystify the source of their power, whether it be through religion, divine mandate or royal inheritance.

By the way, did you notice that "divine mandate" line? Why don't you take a guess on that one, too.

[valar_m]

The account that posted the article also posted an explicitly anti-Semitic comment that promotes the conspiracy theory that Jews are secretly in control of the media[0]:

>Uh, yes. Elon does not follow the program, and doesn't have the kind of pull Gates has, even though he's richer. Gates is the poster child for state initiatives. Elon is out on his own agenda.

Edit: Using Gates as an example. Check Media Matters' donors and get back to me. (Spoiler alert, tons of huge Jewish NGOs. Who did Elon piss off by correctly claiming had outsized influence, again?)

Does knowing that the author explicitly promotes anti-Semitism change your opinion? I'm also curious if this information changes your opinion that I'm reading too much into the article.

Edit: I linked the wrong one, there were two anti-Semites in the same thread. Here is the correct comment that was removed for violating HN policies:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38438884#38439602

Here is what it said (I had it open in another window before it was removed):

>I wish people were a little more skeptical about the negative claims about Twitter/X in the press the last few days, knowing that Elon Musk has pissed off some very powerful people with his recent comments.

Different person, same anti-Semitism, same conspiracy theories being promoted.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38441058