Wasserperson

Karma: −10

Wasserperson 14 Jan 2023 2:45 UTC
−7 points
4 ∶ 4
in reply to: throwaway791’s comment on: I am tired.
You asked for sympathy; you don’t seem willing to receive it.

You insist that your unpopular views are targeted like atheists in 16th century Spain, & dismiss others who feel persecuted for their viewpoints as utter hogwash.

So, it seems what you want is self-glorification? You put yourself forward as singularly persecuted, you ask for sympathy in what seems to have actually been a passive aggressive accusation of hypocrisy,

& so, I do believe that you’re experiencing constant worry about saying the wrong thing, because for whatever reason, that constant anxiety is the price you’ve decided to pay for the righteous certainty of your unpopular convictions.

Dogma is like that.

Wasserperson 14 Jan 2023 1:26 UTC
−3 points
7 ∶ 16
in reply to: Ofer’s comment on: CEA statement on Nick Bostrom’s email
Bostrom’s 2023 letter spends more time defending his 1996 beliefs than anything else.

He chose to “get out in front” in a way that raises far more questions than it settles, & I think this statement rightly holds him accountable for that.

Bostrom today clearly disavows using the N-word in ’97. Does he still believe in some form of white superiority? I hope not! But right now, the ambivalence & vagueness of his 2023 letter is working like a dog whistle to western chauvinists, & I hope he figures that out & denounces them as strongly as this statement does.

Wasserperson 14 Jan 2023 0:44 UTC
21 points
15 ∶ 1
in reply to: Michał Zabłocki’s comment on: A personal response to Nick Bostrom’s “Apology for an Old Email”
Dismissing all of the direct, thoughtful critique of Bostrom’s current letter as just “piling up” about something else is, I am sure, not helpful.

There’s hotheads on twitter cursing at him & hotheads cursing in his defense.

You seem to be implicitly lumping OP here in with that. If that’s not your intent, great, please do say so.

Wasserperson 14 Jan 2023 0:36 UTC
−16 points
11 ∶ 22
in reply to: Chris Leong’s comment on: A personal response to Nick Bostrom’s “Apology for an Old Email”
The use-mention distinction doesn’t apply to Bostrom’s ’97 email.

He wasn’t discussing the origin of the N-word. He wasn’t analyzing a quotation, or discussing the use of the term.

He declared, proudly, his belief in a false, racist trope of white superiority, & attempted to give that declaration a veneer of virtue by contrasting it to an actively hateful, more directly antagonistic statement. He imagined a “real” racist to compare himself to. Using the N-word was a rhetorical choice in service of his aim.

It’s not a mention, it’s a usage.

He used it in ’97 to make his claim of white superiority more palatable.

Today, many people are still focusing on that word as intended, rather than directly asking about the content - Does Bostrom still believe there’s a white race with superior intelligence?