[zo1]

You know, topics like this are not always black and white. There is a full-range, nuance and discussion.

I'd also wager that the downvotes here are because this flame-bait kind of comments are not appropriate for HN, or if they are appropriate then some might not think it's contributing to the discussion anyways.

Me, I think the refusal by some to admit (or accept) that the full-context post adds to the discussion and to instead double-down and cry more racism is definitely not constructive.

I'm honestly getting tired of these "race card" low-blows and one-sided thinking shutting down conversation.

[daveguy]

> I'd also wager that the downvotes here are because this flame-bait kind of comments are not appropriate for HN, or if they are appropriate then some might not think it's contributing to the discussion anyways.

It's odd to me that calling racism racism when a parent called it not racism is either non-contributing or inflamatory. Seems to me it is warranted.

[exo-pla-net]

An assertion without rationale is noise or worse.

"That's racist; cancel them!" falls in the latter category. It's the mindless baying of the rabble. You don't engage with the rabble, as there's no fixing stupid. You just hope they shut up, so that you and the other adults can think, and you hope that the rabble burns down someone else's house.

Analogously, there's not much to be gained from engaging with someone shouting "Allahu Akbar; death to infidels!" That's drone purview.

I hope that helps.

[anigbrowl]

An assertion without rationale is noise or worse.

This could equally be applied to statements like 'blacks are more stupid than whites'. Rather than anyone calling for Bostrom to be cancelled, most of the people posting here just wonder how a clever and academically successful person like Bostrom could have been oblivious to the factual and historical problems of such a broad generalization. One could equally wonder why he picked a racial trope as his controversial example, as opposed to challenging the conventional wisdom on nuclear weapons, or economics, or the superiority of rugby to association football, or the correct pronunciation of 'gif'.

[cauch]

But the author himself says that his sentence is repugnant.

Are you saying that the author has no rational to say that?

It really looks like nowadays we cannot say "that looks racist" without being accused of being the big satan that want to cancel everyone. If this kind of "ad-hominem" is not itself not without any rational and not noisy and inflammatory, I don't know what is.

You can, if you want, defend that according to you this statement was fine and not racist. But you don't do just that, you also say that people who don't agree with you merit to be down-voted and that the forum would be better if their voice was not even there. Difficult to not see there exactly a justification of a "cancelation" of an opinion you just don't like.

[exo-pla-net]

> Are you saying that the author has no rational to say that?

Sure, instrumental rationale: PR.

And, because I believe that Bostrom says what he means, Bostrom probably does think what he said was repugnant, but probably not in a way that you would find satisfying. Bostrom probably thinks that speaking truthfully about vulnerable people, in a manner that could distress them (e.g. owing to their misunderstanding of the truthful words, or in a "truth hurts" sort of way), is morally repugnant. Better to spare them suffering. If I am correct, I disagree with Bostrom. Having to cater to delicate and low-IQ sensibilities is a wrench in the wheels of intellectual discourse, as well as a dystopian blow to personal expression. Don't let the scolds win.

> It really looks like nowadays we cannot say "that looks racist"

You don't have a license to denigration. Think very carefully, and consider the possibility that you are wrong, before you cast stones.

> You can, if you want, defend that according to you this statement was fine and not racist.

But what I quoted contained my rationale? If it ain't good enough for you, the impetus is on you to prove that Bostrom is, in fact, a witch. The ball is in your court.

> Difficult to not see there exactly a "cancelation" of an opinion you just don't like.

Any opinion at all, and especially opinions that differ from my own, I'd welcome at the table, as long as said opinion is articulated and epistemically rationalized by someone who is smart and who has given it careful thought. If you're not capable of that, then yes, your silence would improve the forum.

[notahacker]

A statement that Race X is "more stupid" than Race Y is almost tautologically racist.

The idea that Nick denigrating an entire race as 'stupid' is "accurate and mild", whereas any suggestion that the statement contains racism requires a "license to denigrate" is truly through the looking glass...

[exo-pla-net]

He's not saying the race is stupid. He is saying that it is more stupid, an operant he expounds on, revealing his underlying meaning as both accurate and mild. A factual statement is not and is never denigration.

If you and you specifically were the sole member of a race, for instance, his operant would rank your race below that of Black. This would be an observation, not a denigration.

But, if you are not Black, you are the recipient of favorable averaging. Your race would be less stupid than Black, despite you.

I hope that helps.

[helboi4]

Yup. Like are we moving the goalposts as to what racism is. I'm not sure how you could come up with a statement which is more unequivocally racist.

It really is telling that somehow none of these people that care about reasonable debate are criticising the guy saying that implying some racists are stupider than others is "accurate and mild". Apparently, him saying that is fine. But ever suggesting anything is racist is not.

Clearly, the only logical conclusion here is that nobody is allowed to call anything racist. This sounds like something you would only try and enforce if you are invested in more rampant racism.

[hackinthebochs]

Do facts not have any relevance to this debate? Is it all just vibes? I.e. Bostrom is racist because his vibe was off?

[cauch]

You are pretending that you are welcoming any opinion, especially opinions that differ from your own. Yet, you were very quick to invent unfunded hypotheses to cast opinions different from yours as "not smart and therefore discardable".

Your "PR" hypothesis or "cater to delicate and low-IQ sensibilities" falls flat as the author has demonstrated before and after that he does not want to play in this PR game. It's exactly the point he is making in the first statements and the point he is making in his excuse: "I do think that provocative communication styles have a place". He also explains that he apologized 24h after having sent that message, when he had no idea that he will need one day some kind of PR considerations, and at a time when he was not even pressured to make any kind of apologies.

So, no, I call bullshit: he is giving the proof, himself, by explaining that, 24h after having said that, he properly realised his words went further than his thoughts. Without any need for PR, without even any pressure pushing him to do so. (and again, if it is a lie, it's a stupid one, as someone can check, and a totally useless one, because it does not need to invent that if he just want to do some PR clean-up)

The funny part is that I think the quote is indeed racist but the guy is not, he is just one of these edgelords who want to provoke to feel themselves smart (based on what he himself says when he explains that he is biased towards provocative ideas). But now you are yourself painting him as a smart guy for defending something that himself explained is in fact not smart and not his opinion at all. It feels like some silence would have improved the forum and also avoided some people to look pretty stupid ...

[daveguy]

Your conflation of responding "yes it is," when someone claims something is not racist when it clearly is with "that's racist, cancel them!" seems disingenuous. As disingenuous as conflating it to "Allahu Akbar; death to infidels". Correctly identifying a statement as racist when someone else said it wasn't is about as polar opposite as you can get to "death to infidels!" Do you see them as equivalent?

[helboi4]

Yeah bro I never said anyone should be cancelled. I have a problem with people calling the statement "Blacks are stupider than whites" "accurate".

[helboi4]

I'm not sure what you think about my comments is flame bait. I'm having a discussion about whether or not these comments are racist, since someone brought them up.

This is not pulling out the "race card". I made absolutely no "low-blows". Stating that calling black people lower IQ than whites is very much racist is not an unreasonable thing to say. I have no problem with anyone bringing up context. I just think implying that anything about the statement is "accurate" is racist. I'm not sure what is so contraversial about stating that saying white people are inherently smarter than other races is a white supremacist talking point.

And its not just me, anyone saying absolutely anything in support of the idea that what this guy said was bad is being downvoted. No matter how restrained their comment.

I would also much rather people replied to me rather than just downvote. That would be a discussion.