Most active commenters
  • throwaway5752(4)

←back to thread

494 points Bostonian | 11 comments | | HN request time: 1.335s | source | bottom
Show context
tptacek ◴[] No.42179830[source]
I want to be sympathetic to Singal, whose writing always seems to generate shitstorms disproportionate to anything he's actually saying, and whose premise in this piece I tend to agree with (as someone whose politics largely line up with those of the outgoing editor in chief, I've found a lot of what SciAm has posted to be cringe-worthy and destructive).

But what is he on about here?

Or that the normal distribution—a vital and basic statistical concept—is inherently suspect? No, really: Three days after the legendary biologist and author E.O. Wilson died, SciAm published a surreal hit piece about him in which the author lamented "his dangerous ideas on what factors influence human behavior."

(a) The (marked!) editorial is in no way a refutation of the concept of the normal distribution.

(b) It's written by a currently-publishing tenured life sciences professor (though, clearly, not one of the ones Singal would have chosen --- or, to be fair, me, though it's not hard for me to get over that and confirm that she's familiar with basic statistics).

(c) There's absolutely nothing "surreal" about taking Wilson to task for his support of scientific racism; multiple headline stories have been written about it, in particular his relationship with John Philippe Rushton, the discredited late head of the Pioneer Fund.

It's one thing for Singal to have culturally heterodox† views on unsettled trans science and policy issues††, another for him to dip his toes into HBD-ism. Sorry, dude, there's a dark stain on Wilson's career. Trying to sneak that past the reader, as if it was knee-jerk wokeism, sabotages the credibility of your own piece.

Again, the rest of this piece, sure. Maybe he's right. The Jedi thing in particular: major ugh. But I don't want to have to check all of his references, and it appears that one needs to.

term used advisedly

†† this is what Singal is principally known for

replies(8): >>42180850 #>>42181326 #>>42181738 #>>42183745 #>>42183752 #>>42183888 #>>42188366 #>>42193594 #
taeric ◴[] No.42180850[source]
Agreed fully on the JEDI stuff. I was somewhat hoping it was from an April first issue. That was bad.

And I thought I recognized the name. I really do not understand how trans debate has come to dominate some online discourse.

I thought the complaint on the normal distribution was supposed to be claims that many things are not normally distributed? Which, isn't wrong, but is a misguided reason to not use the distribution?

replies(4): >>42181421 #>>42181639 #>>42183741 #>>42189050 #
throwaway5752 ◴[] No.42183741[source]
" I really do not understand how trans debate has come to dominate some online discourse."

It is a wedge issue, simply. It benefits entrenched interests because it allows them to anger and control people, just like they do with the War on Christmas, the War on Guns, Welfare Queens, Baby Killers, Wokeism, DEI, and so many other catchphrases that collapse nuanced issues to a sports slogan.

This entire discussion is grossly disappointing. So many otherwise intelligent people thinking they are debating issues, when they are being played like a fiddle.

replies(2): >>42184958 #>>42200078 #
1. ◴[] No.42185415[source]
2. throwaway5752 ◴[] No.42185607[source]
You can't "defuse" a wedge issue, you can only decline to be manipulated. That is an individual act. There is no "side" to a wedge issue, it is a false dichotomy crafted to create maximal division. They are focus group tested and refined to do so.

The "War on Christmas" effects a greater sense of persecution while framing it as a nonexistent conflict. There is no War on Christmas. I can say Merry Christmas or not, and it will not effect the wedge issue because it is and never was about saying Merry Christmas to others.

replies(1): >>42186456 #
3. mrguyorama ◴[] No.42185658[source]
>Would you be willing to defuse it by instituting a policy of always saying "merry Christmas" instead of "happy holidays"?

This is nonsensical. This isn't "defusing" it, this is authoritarianism and literal capitulation to the absurd demands that are meaningless

People say "Happy holidays" now because they know some people don't celebrate Christmas and they want to be nice, friendly, and pleasant to them as well.

If you have a problem with people saying "Happy holidays" in place of "Merry Christmas" you are a fucking baby.

replies(1): >>42185768 #
4. throwaway5752 ◴[] No.42185768[source]
Don't get mad about it. That is the definition of victory for the groups creating these issues. Just ignore it and go about your day as much as possible. Don't comment about it online.

They are only industrial strength memes to create anger and distrust, thereby placing people in more manipulable mental states. You starve them by ignoring them, regardless of the merits. Most of all, don't react with anger.

5. lupusreal ◴[] No.42185905[source]
> Would you be willing to defuse it by instituting a policy of always saying "merry Christmas" instead of "happy holidays"?

I'm an atheist and this is my approach. I think their religion is complete nonsense but Christmas is a wholly inoffensive Holiday, which is celebrated in a fashion by many secular people anyway. I think the "Happy Holidays" thing is needlessly antagonist. In principle it should be fine but a lot of people take it the wrong way, it is known that many people take it the wrong way, and therefore if I said it then I would be saying it with the knowledge and acceptance that it's going to bother a lot of people (hence, antagonistic.)

replies(1): >>42193276 #
6. SpicyLemonZest ◴[] No.42186456[source]
I agree with most of what you're saying except for the contention that the dichotomy is false. It's a good wedge issue precisely because it's a true dichotomy. Even when attempting to dismiss the debate as fabricated and pointless, you end up taking a side on accident, flatly stating that there's no War on Christmas and that it doesn't really matter whether you say Merry Christmas to others. On the other side of the wedge, people believe that Christmas is quite literally the second most important day in the world, and fear that we might put our immortal souls at risk if we don't properly commemorate it.
replies(3): >>42188721 #>>42190347 #>>42193245 #
7. ◴[] No.42188721{3}[source]
8. throwaway5752 ◴[] No.42190347{3}[source]
I don't say Happy Holidays in a negative way, and I've always been happy to hear a sincere Merry Christmas. The idea of "war" has no business being anywhere near that day. Choose to be the peace on Earth that we all want and need.

Merry Christmas to you.

9. amanaplanacanal ◴[] No.42193245{3}[source]
Everybody likes to think their religion is more important than everybody else's, I get it. But there are a lot of holidays around mid-winter, and I wouldn't try to guess which ones another person might celebrate. People maybe should worry about their own immortal souls rather than mine, if that is their concern.
10. amanaplanacanal ◴[] No.42193276[source]
You aren't worried about folks of other religions that don't celebrate Christmas? Only about those that do? Is this some sort of Christian privilege thing?
replies(1): >>42196016 #
11. lupusreal ◴[] No.42196016{3}[source]
I've never had members of other religions get upset about me wishing them a Merry Christmas, so no I'm not worried about it. If Jewish people started whining to me about it or something then the equation might change, but in fact those that I know are usually more perfunctory about wishing me a Merry Christmas than I am to them.

As to privilege.. whatever man. The simple fact is that Christians are the predominant religion where I live and they are touchy about this matter in a way other people aren't, so why should I go against the flow? Just to spite people I feel no real animosity against? To undermine a holiday I enjoy? Literally why.