Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Update on My Situation

slatestarcodex.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 142 posts

Re: Update on My Situation

#71

Post by maxander »

mpalmer wrote: post #65
frank2 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All we know is that Substack is willing to make a lot of promises to Scott. Scott probably lacks (as I do) the expertise to negotiate a contract that would actually hold Substack to those promises. But maybe I am being too cynical.

Hard to believe Scott Alexander doesn't have the wherewithal to find the right representation for something like this.

I also don’t believe that a blogging platform like Substack would do anything to actively antagonize a superstar blogger like Scott, who obviously has a significant following of blog-readers independent of them.

Re: Update on My Situation

#72

Post by shajznnckfke »

peteretep wrote: post #28

I would like someone with the funds to do so to simply become his patron, and give him a salary to do what the hell he likes, ala medieval Europe. He’s got to have enough very wealthy fans that this is realistic?

I think the more modern version of this arrangement would be for Alexander to work at/start a think tank, which has the advantage of being tax-exempt for the patron.

Or for a less formal, more distributed solution, there is of course Patreon.

Re: Update on My Situation

#73

Post by DanBC »

s3cur3 wrote: post #13
sillysaurusx wrote: post #8

At this point I think maintaining anonymity is a losing battle. So I am gradually reworking my life to be compatible with the sort of publicity that circumstances seem to be forcing on me. I had a talk with my employer and we came to a mutual agreement that I would gradually transition away from working there. Wait, what ? Why? What'd he write that's so incompatible with employment as a psychiatrist? I don't get it.…

Background: https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/06/22/nyt-is-threatening-my-... > First, I’m a psychiatrist, and psychiatrists are kind of obsessive about preventing their patients from knowing anything about who they are outside of work. You can read more about this in this Scientific American article – and remember that the last psychiatrist blogger to get doxxed abandoned his blog too. I am not one of the big stickler…

> I’m a psychiatrist, and psychiatrists are kind of obsessive about preventing their patients from knowing anything about who they are outside of work.

Maybe that's true in the US. In the UK I follow a bunch of psychiatrists on twitter and they all use their real name. And they're strongly encouraged to use their real name by their regulator (the GMC) if they're making claims as a doctor on social media.

Re: Update on My Situation

#74

Post by [deleted] »

unityByFreedom wrote: post #20
dmurray wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this doesn't really answer the question, though. Psychiatrists like to do X - is that because they follow a cargo cult of other psychiatrists who do X, or because there's empirical evidence that not-X is bad for patient outcomes (or bad for doctor outcomes - he has repeatedly mentioned concerns over his physical security)? This is exactly the kind of question I'd expect SSC to tackle thoughtfully on his blog…

Consider therapists who have you lie on a couch vs those who have you sit in the same style chair, as an equal. Some therapists position themselves as an authority figure for their patients. If they were to open up about themselves, the patient might think they're incapable after seeing the therapist has doubts in their own life. This has advantages and drawbacks. It may be more efficient in earning trust, thus helpi…

[deleted]

Re: Update on My Situation

#76

Post by [deleted] »

unityByFreedom wrote: post #23
canjobear wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His new practice will be medication management, not psychotherapy.

When people go this route, do they still see or talk to another therapist? I always figured people's chemical imbalances were influenced by behavior. If you just treat the chemical imbalance without addressing the behavior, isn't that rather risky?

[deleted]

Re: Update on My Situation

#77

Post by mgamache »

joshuamorton wrote: post #68
bargl wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK I said I wasn't going to lurk, but I have a problem. Blacklisting isn't cancel culture, I don't understand how it equates at all. I think, we're talking past each-other a bit here just because cancel culture can be hard to define. It's defined by some as boycotting like "cancel Netflix". It'd defined by others as canceling an individual like "this person tweeted about XYZ when they were 17 fire them." It can also…

Can you give examples of what you consider cancellation and not? For examples is Scott Alexander, a well known blogger, having is full name (which is only sort of a secret) posted "cancellation" in your eyes? I think the issue may be that you're defining cancel culture in a way that's very different than what most people in general, and in this thread, do. That's not wholly your fault, but it does mean that the conve…

Of course we only hear about famous (or semi-famous) people

Off the top of my head...

Stephen Hsu of MSU

Greg Patton of USC

Bret Weinstein (a few years ago.. this backfired).

Jonathan Friedland (fired for using the N-Word in a meeting discussing sensitive words in PR),

Peter Boghossian (still is employed, but was harassed IRL and investigated under ethics charges after the grievance studies papers).

But, it's the famous people that are the most important for signalling that if you publicly voice an unpopular opinion you will have to endure retribution. It's the chilling effect that important as that will silence multiples for each public witch burning.

For most of human history being ostracized from your social group was a death sentence. We are wired to respond to negative group pressure. We learn the rules pretty quickly. Avoid certain topics, post anodyne content, virtue signal to my in group.

Re: Update on My Situation

#78

Post by sam_lowry_ »

divbzero wrote: post #15
stevenwliao wrote: post #12

So the lesson for those who maintain anonymous or pseudo-anonymous identities online- As your pseudonym's popularity grows, chances increase that someone will be interested in unmasking your identity. The only solutions are to reduce your pseudonym's visibility or staying fully anonymous in the first place.

Incredibly sad but true. There seems to be two opposing imperatives for online social identity. On one hand you want reputation and accountability for what people say to fight trolling, bullying, and misinformation. On the other hand you want some level of anonymity to encourage free speech and expression. I don’t know if this core tension can ever be fully resolved but our current online environment is clearly far f…

This is a solved problem, just rarely implemented in real life on a large scale. Karma systems.

You can be anonymous and at he same time have some valuable history of past interactions.

Slashdot, Stack Overflow, etc. are good examples.

Re: Update on My Situation

#79

Post by unityByFreedom »

tzs wrote: post #62
unityByFreedom wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure it is. You're in a more vulnerable position while reclining.

What about the common trope of a person with wealth and/or power reclining while a servant or slave feeds them grapes or fans them with palm fronds [1]? Is Djambi actually higher status than Hedonism bot [2]? [1] https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GrapesOfLuxury [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFYMzQ3Vfq0

Haha IMO we are all equally capable of thinking for ourselves, and therefore it is not necessary to have the patient recline in order to subjugate them and/or induce openness.

Re: Update on My Situation

#80

Post by joshuamorton »

mgamache wrote: post #77
joshuamorton wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you give examples of what you consider cancellation and not? For examples is Scott Alexander, a well known blogger, having is full name (which is only sort of a secret) posted "cancellation" in your eyes? I think the issue may be that you're defining cancel culture in a way that's very different than what most people in general, and in this thread, do. That's not wholly your fault, but it does mean that the conve…

Of course we only hear about famous (or semi-famous) people Off the top of my head... Stephen Hsu of MSU Greg Patton of USC Bret Weinstein (a few years ago.. this backfired). Jonathan Friedland (fired for using the N-Word in a meeting discussing sensitive words in PR), Peter Boghossian (still is employed, but was harassed IRL and investigated under ethics charges after the grievance studies papers). But, it's the fam…

This is exactly the problem, of the people you listed, only perhaps freidland and patton meet GPs definition of cancel culture. The others got backlash for doing incendiary, public things, which doesn't meet the definition given by GP.

Hsu, Weinstein, and Boghossian definitely do not meet GPs definition. After a second look, Freidland also does not. He was fired by netflix solely due to their preferences and without any sort of external hubbub at all. (I'm also not clear how Friedland's firing meets any definition of cancel culture, so I'd like to hear your definition as well).

Post reply on HN