We are all Slave now.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Guys, what do you mean by "censorship"?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/IO...in=nytimes.com

Article sums up discussion (we're all tired of here*) of tech companies, their cafeterias, and efforts attempting to get them to interact with actual people.

TM

*I know, I know.

Query: Does google take care of this by just opening their cafeteria to outsiders as a restaurant, maybe with a separate room designated for "google only" meetings/discusion?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Quote it. Quote where Klein advocates (what you call) censorship.

Ezra Klein

I think there is what you would call confusion here. I do think it’s just important to say this. I have not criticized you, and I continue to not, for having the conversation. I’ve criticized you for having the conversation without dealing with and separating it out and thinking through the context and the weight of American history on it.

More concisely, address the issue the way I believe you should address the issue. If there's nothing to be censored from the conversation, or avoided, then there's no need for Klein to tell Harris how he should approach Murray. It's only because Klein believes certain elements of Murray's theories need to be avoided (are deviant) that he believes Harris should "think through the context." This "thinking through the context" is a sly way of saying, "be more careful," particularly when you listen to the podcast rather than read it. Klein has no business telling Harris to be careful or not careful.

Klein again:

"I think that there is room to have conversations about genetic findings, but because we are mapping those conversations onto social-political realities, having more conversations where you deliver more nuance and more understanding, where you yourself get more understanding of the social-political realities — I feel uncomfortable being the person on the other side of the chair here. I don’t think — I’m not an expert on race and IQ — but I’m also not someone who I think is the right spokesperson for the experience of other races in this country. And I don’t think that is me falling into a trap of identity politics. I think that is me being honest about what are the limits of my own perception. There’s a lot I can learn, but, you know, I’m a political journalist and I’ve only learned so much.

I continue to think that the way you handled the conversation with Murray, framing it as a question of political correctness, did too much to ignore what this conversation has meant to people, for whom the dangers is not that Charles Murray will be — and I think this was bad — be de-platformed and even have his chaperone assaulted at Middlebury, or what has been more normal in his career, be extremely successful but widely criticized. I think that a conversation with a broader range of experts would give you more texture and more empathy for the people whom this conversation and its imprecision and the way it gets leveraged in American life really hurts them."

Once more, Klein is telling Harris that Harris needs to drop a straight-up empirical approach to the subject and consider a broader context. He's telling Harris to consider the social political realities (his words) as he assesses a scientific theory.

I don't know how you don't see the censorship. (Except to be obtuse and say Klein doesn't come out and forbid Harris from taking a purely empirical approach, which he obviously cannot.) When you tell a person they should follow your preferred limits on how a debate may proceed, you have put borders on that debate. Those borders requires that certain things not be said, or that certain things be said differently. This is request for the prohibition of certain expressions and ideas. Is it Orwellian? No. Is it violent and compulsory? Of course not. But it's an attempt to pre-empt the blunt scientific discussion of controversial theories and replace them with a softer discussion including non-scientific considerations.

It's massaging the conversation to a murky place where there's no straightforward assessment of Murray's "work." It's a really pernicious attempt at subtle censorship, and it only serves to prolong Murrayism.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Query: Does google take care of this by just opening their cafeteria to outsiders as a restaurant, maybe with a separate room designated for "google only" meetings/discusion?

Is this a serious question? If so, no. If not, good one.

TM

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Ezra Klein

I think there is what you would call confusion here. I do think it’s just important to say this. I have not criticized you, and I continue to not, for having the conversation. I’ve criticized you for having the conversation without dealing with and separating it out and thinking through the context and the weight of American history on it.

More concisely, address the issue the way I believe you should address the issue. If there's nothing to be censored from the conversation, or avoided, then there's no need for Klein to tell Harris how he should approach Murray. It's only because Klein believes certain elements of Murray's theories need to be avoided (are deviant) that he believes Harris should "think through the context." This "thinking through the context" is a sly way of saying, "be more careful," particularly when you listen to the podcast rather than read it. Klein has no business telling Harris to be careful or not careful.

Klein again:

"I think that there is room to have conversations about genetic findings, but because we are mapping those conversations onto social-political realities, having more conversations where you deliver more nuance and more understanding, where you yourself get more understanding of the social-political realities — I feel uncomfortable being the person on the other side of the chair here. I don’t think — I’m not an expert on race and IQ — but I’m also not someone who I think is the right spokesperson for the experience of other races in this country. And I don’t think that is me falling into a trap of identity politics. I think that is me being honest about what are the limits of my own perception. There’s a lot I can learn, but, you know, I’m a political journalist and I’ve only learned so much.

I continue to think that the way you handled the conversation with Murray, framing it as a question of political correctness, did too much to ignore what this conversation has meant to people, for whom the dangers is not that Charles Murray will be — and I think this was bad — be de-platformed and even have his chaperone assaulted at Middlebury, or what has been more normal in his career, be extremely successful but widely criticized. I think that a conversation with a broader range of experts would give you more texture and more empathy for the people whom this conversation and its imprecision and the way it gets leveraged in American life really hurts them."

Once more, Klein is telling Harris that Harris needs to drop a straight-up empirical approach to the subject and consider a broader context. He's telling Harris to consider the social political realities (his words) as he assesses a scientific theory.

I don't know how you don't see the censorship. (Except to be obtuse and say Klein doesn't come out and forbid Harris from taking a purely empirical approach, which he obviously cannot.) When you tell a person they should follow your preferred limits on how a debate may proceed, you have put borders on that debate. Those borders requires that certain things not be said, or that certain things be said differently. This is request for the prohibition of certain expressions and ideas. Is it Orwellian? No. Is it violent and compulsory? Of course not. But it's an attempt to pre-empt the blunt scientific discussion of controversial theories and replace them with a softer discussion including non-scientific considerations.

It's massaging the conversation to a murky place where there's no straightforward assessment of Murray's "work." It's a really pernicious attempt at subtle censorship, and it only serves to prolong Murrayism.

This is perhaps the least interesting conversation we've ever had, but "deliver more nuance and more understanding" sounds like urging him to say more, not less.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

I haven't really tried to defend Klein, so it's telling that you keep beating on him. He's not trying "fix the rules" or "preemptively reject" anything. Why is it so important to you that Murray (or Harris) be a martyr? Klein doesn't control what anyone says, and if you don't like Vox you don't have to read it. You can't just disagree with him -- you have to pretending he is somehow preventing Harris or Murray from being heard, rather than publishing an extended exchange in Vox.

Klein is absolutely trying to win by defining the rules of the game to suit his views. His chief criticism is that Harris should not invite Murray on a podcast to discuss "Forbidden Knowledge" (I think that's what Harris's podcast with Murray was called, or something similar) in a purely clinical manner. He's telling Harris he should not have done something, and is trafficking in dangerous waters to continue to do so.

I've never met a third rail I wouldn't touch, and Harris steps over every one he sees. I find people who try to prevent such "dangerous" behavior detrimental to a free society.

Everything can be the source of a joke.
Everything can be the source of a discussion.

Klein can offend me. I can turn him off. I cannot tell him how to conduct his debates. And he cannot tell me how to conduct mine. And most certainly, neither of us has any business trying to create codes of behavior that suppress even the most preposterous views. Dumb ideas will and should fail on their own lack of merit.

Klein really does get under your skin.

He's terribly predictable and very muddy. That transcript is a fucking mess. The guy's Trumpian in his asides.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

This is perhaps the least interesting conversation we've ever had, but "deliver more nuance and more understanding" sounds like urging him to say more, not less.

No. It's "include the considerations I, Ezra Klein, want considered in the debate."

Hold you own debate then, Ezra, and leave Murray and Harris to have theirs.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

No. It's "include the considerations I, Ezra Klein, want considered in the debate."

Yes, and? "Hey, I think it's misleading not to include X bit of context" is an entirely common and valid critique.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Is this a serious question? If so, no. If not, good one.

TM

GGG, I think the fight is "if google has a free lunchroom for its people, how does the presence of google in the neighborhood, benefit the neighborhood?" Like, no google folks are walking outside to buy food and also not shopping at local stores. Your proposal would be actually worse- assuming I'm correct what the fight is.

Now the I helped clear this up, who is the interviewer sebby linked, is that "harris?'

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

GGG, I think the fight is "if google has a free lunchroom for its people, how does the presence of google in the neighborhood, benefit the neighborhood?" Like, no google folks are walking outside to buy food and also not shopping at local stores. Your proposal would be actually worse- assuming I'm correct what the fight is.

Now the I helped clear this up, who is the interviewer sebby linked, is that "harris?'

I don't click on sebby links.

My comment was in jest. I really think what Google would do is just buy up all the neighborhood eateries and let their employees spend "google bucks" at them.

Let's face it, SV and SF are starting to look like Company towns. It's straight outa 1930s West Virginia.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Ezra Klein

I think there is what you would call confusion here. I do think it’s just important to say this. I have not criticized you, and I continue to not, for having the conversation. I’ve criticized you for having the conversation without dealing with and separating it out and thinking through the context and the weight of American history on it.

More concisely, address the issue the way I believe you should address the issue. If there's nothing to be censored from the conversation, or avoided, then there's no need for Klein to tell Harris how he should approach Murray. It's only because Klein believes certain elements of Murray's theories need to be avoided (are deviant) that he believes Harris should "think through the context." This "thinking through the context" is a sly way of saying, "be more careful," particularly when you listen to the podcast rather than read it. Klein has no business telling Harris to be careful or not careful.

Klein again:

"I think that there is room to have conversations about genetic findings, but because we are mapping those conversations onto social-political realities, having more conversations where you deliver more nuance and more understanding, where you yourself get more understanding of the social-political realities — I feel uncomfortable being the person on the other side of the chair here. I don’t think — I’m not an expert on race and IQ — but I’m also not someone who I think is the right spokesperson for the experience of other races in this country. And I don’t think that is me falling into a trap of identity politics. I think that is me being honest about what are the limits of my own perception. There’s a lot I can learn, but, you know, I’m a political journalist and I’ve only learned so much.

I continue to think that the way you handled the conversation with Murray, framing it as a question of political correctness, did too much to ignore what this conversation has meant to people, for whom the dangers is not that Charles Murray will be — and I think this was bad — be de-platformed and even have his chaperone assaulted at Middlebury, or what has been more normal in his career, be extremely successful but widely criticized. I think that a conversation with a broader range of experts would give you more texture and more empathy for the people whom this conversation and its imprecision and the way it gets leveraged in American life really hurts them."

Once more, Klein is telling Harris that Harris needs to drop a straight-up empirical approach to the subject and consider a broader context. He's telling Harris to consider the social political realities (his words) as he assesses a scientific theory.

I don't know how you don't see the censorship. (Except to be obtuse and say Klein doesn't come out and forbid Harris from taking a purely empirical approach, which he obviously cannot.) When you tell a person they should follow your preferred limits on how a debate may proceed, you have put borders on that debate. Those borders requires that certain things not be said, or that certain things be said differently. This is request for the prohibition of certain expressions and ideas. Is it Orwellian? No. Is it violent and compulsory? Of course not. But it's an attempt to pre-empt the blunt scientific discussion of controversial theories and replace them with a softer discussion including non-scientific considerations.

It's massaging the conversation to a murky place where there's no straightforward assessment of Murray's "work." It's a really pernicious attempt at subtle censorship, and it only serves to prolong Murrayism.

Whatever you think Klein is doing, it's not censorship, and you should just admit you got that one wrong. As Adder says, Klein is not trying to shut anyone up, he's saying that if you are going to give credence to someone who is arguing that blacks are genetically inferior, you should acknowledge the context instead of pretending it doesn't exist.

Far from being censored, Murray has no problem spreading his views, far out of proportion to their merits. There are a lot of people who really want to hear what he is saying, and who want to pretend it's good science, or at least good enough to be taken seriously.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Let's face it, SV and SF are starting to look like Company towns. It's straight outa 1930s West Virginia.

You should visit and see, because that's ridiculous.

[Hank Chinaski]

Nvm

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You should visit and see, because that's ridiculous.

I spend time around at various company campuses and office parks around there.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Yes, and? "Hey, I think it's misleading not to include X bit of context" is an entirely common and valid critique.

That is entirely fine. I have no issue with Klein registering that criticism. Where Klein steps over the line is telling Harris how he should conduct his discussions. Klein is not merely saying, "Sam Harris fails to put a discussion in the proper context." He is saying, "It is not valid, or appropriate, to discuss things in the manner Sam Harris has with Murray." You can't divorce that comment from its intrinsic meaning: "Certain discussions should not be had."

There is no way to have the discussion Murray and Harris did in the manner Klein prescribes. That would be a different discussion. The only way to have the discussion Harris and Murray had is to have it the way they wanted to have it. If they are pressured to have it differently, then the discussion is censored.

I actually agree with Klein, oddly. I think Murray should be treated with extreme skepticism because he bases a lot of conclusions on generalizations, cherry-picked stats, and anecdata. I just don't think Klein or I have the right to tell Harris or anyone else what's appropriate in a discussion with Murray or anyone else. That sort of thinking seems similar to the anti-hate speech laws in Europe, which are anathema to the concept of free speech.

ETA: But of course, Klein has every right to say whatever he likes, and prescribe whatever rules he likes.