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

121–130 of 142 posts

Re: Update on My Situation

#121

Post by mgamache »

joshuamorton wrote: post #80
mgamache wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

GP was looking for people 'who was not previously famous'. Any college professor has a somewhat public job, but it's not the defining feature of the job (for most professors).

Re: Update on My Situation

#122

Post by joshuamorton »

mgamache wrote: post #121
joshuamorton wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

GP was looking for people 'who was not previously famous'. Any college professor has a somewhat public job, but it's not the defining feature of the job (for most professors).

You picked out one aspect of four. A college professor who gets recognition for controversial research they do does have the opportunity to contextualize that research. Someone who spends weeks or months devoted to doing something wasn't "caught on a bad day".

An executive fired by their own company isn't "thrust into the spotlight".

If your personal definition of cancel culture is "a non famous person faces consequences for an act", that's fine, but it's also a uselessly loose definition.

Re: Update on My Situation

#123

Post by bradj »

peteretep wrote: post #81
shajznnckfke wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That’s interesting, although my understanding of Think Tanks is that they’re meant to be following an editorial line

I think some think tanks are sponsored to support scholars, and public intellectuals, that hold particular beliefs. Others are more academic, and will have scholars with multiple viewpoints.

Re: Update on My Situation

#124

Post by HALtheWise »

tedunangst wrote: post #37
brundolf wrote: post #6

> And now that I’ve publicly admitted privacy is important to me – something I tried to avoid coming on too strong about before, for exactly this reason – some people have taken it upon themselves to post my real name all over Twitter in order to harass and threaten me. Has anybody applied the Dark Forest metaphor to internet publicity? It's fascinating (horrifying) how simply catching the attention of too big a piec…

One strategy might be to not hit the self destruct button prematurely. Far more people have read and shared his blog post about being doxxed than have read the NYT article.

To make it clear, there is no NYT article. Some combination of things (likely including the shutdown of the blog) has prevented it from being published.

Re: Update on My Situation

#125

Post by fscsq »

joshuamorton wrote: post #122
mgamache wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GP was looking for people 'who was not previously famous'. Any college professor has a somewhat public job, but it's not the defining feature of the job (for most professors).

You picked out one aspect of four. A college professor who gets recognition for controversial research they do does have the opportunity to contextualize that research. Someone who spends weeks or months devoted to doing something wasn't "caught on a bad day". An executive fired by their own company isn't "thrust into the spotlight". If your personal definition of cancel culture is "a non famous person faces conseque…

"Faced consequences" is such a horrid phrase. Strongly implying that a heinous act had been committed, one that required punishment but would have gone unpunished, and that the "consequences" wrought instead were fair and justified and proportionate and meaningful...but without having to actually make such statements. That they don't normally face consequences, that they are the fabled Men of Power that run roughshod over laws and morals and spend their days kicking dogs and grabbing pussies, and it is up to us to make them face Consequences once and for all. But fortunately, you only said "they did something, so we felt justified to Do Something", a statement of fact, impervious to attack.

Re: Update on My Situation

#126

Post by pas »

edbob wrote: post #110
edanm wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, Scott himself says that there was no ill intent on NYT's part. I don't consider this a part of cancel culture because there was no specific attempt to cancel him.

From the original article, "NYT Is Threatening My Safety By Revealing My Real Name, So I Am Deleting The Blog" "Unfortunately, he told me he had discovered my real name and would reveal it in the article, ie doxx me." "I’m not sure what happens next. In my ideal world, the New York Times realizes they screwed up, promises not to use my real name in the article, and promises to rethink their strategy of doxxing random…

What you quote is of course the essence of the problem, but I don't think it's cancel culture (and also parent commenter doesn't think it is that either).

Because cancel culture seems to be when someone does something (discussing eugenetics, speaking Mandarin that sounds like a racial slur ... or blurts racists shit on live TV, sexually harasses others, and so on) and a mob attacks them and their host institution. Some of that is really justified some doesn't seem so.

In this case Scott wasn't attacked by any mob. He simply wanted to keep his relationship with his patients that, a strictly exclusively doctor-patient relationship, no need for a third channel (eg the NYT, and his blog linked by the NYT).

Re: Update on My Situation

#127

Post by pas »

edbob wrote: post #97
pas wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not the promises that are problematic. The long term plans and interests of Substack are not so well aligned with Scott's. Every future development has to either treat him as a special snowflake (so they have to implement a VIP tier) or eventually bulldoze every perk of his blog back into uniformity. I don't understand why doesn't he goes full patreon.

If cancel culture is causing him problems, then Patreon is the last place he wants to be.

Why? He's not selling sex, and I haven't heard anything that they don't want to host.

Re: Update on My Situation

#128

Post by pas »

stevenwliao wrote: post #102
pas wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the blog is very important for him, just as psychiatry.

Yes, but we can infer from his initial actions that he preferred keeping his job over maintaining the blog.

As far as I understand the "hiding of the blog" was an immediate reaction to make the NYT think for a second and so to stop the publication of the article. Basically it was a statement to underline how seriously he takes his request for privacy. So he can keep the status quo, his income, and so he minimizes any harm to his patients.

But that just means he wanted to change the NYT's mind (the journalist's and/or the editor's at least), not to forever give up blogging. (So it seems to me his preferences are rather complex and they depend on various time-frames.)

Re: Update on My Situation

#129

Post by Viliam1234 »

unityByFreedom wrote: post #21
brundolf wrote: post #6

> And now that I’ve publicly admitted privacy is important to me – something I tried to avoid coming on too strong about before, for exactly this reason – some people have taken it upon themselves to post my real name all over Twitter in order to harass and threaten me. Has anybody applied the Dark Forest metaphor to internet publicity? It's fascinating (horrifying) how simply catching the attention of too big a piec…

> You don't even have to have done anything controversial. Attention itself appears to be caustic, at the extreme. I haven't read it but I assumed the blog was controversial based on all the concern about anonymity. Is that not the case?

There are several independent reasons.

First, people who need a psychiatrist (or doctor in general) sometimes do a simple background check on them. Like, put their name in Google and try to find some reviews, just to see if other patients were satisfied with them or not. Some topics that Scott debates would be quite inappropriate for people seeking psychiatric help. For example, imagine that you are suffering from paranoia, and you find out that your psychiatrist seriously considers the possibility that superintelligent robots may soon exterminate the humankind.

Second, although Scott is generally left-wing, he is not fully 100% on the side of the left-wing orthodoxy. For example, he would write an article about how Trump is a horrible person and a disaster for America, but would also mention that a few details that the mainstream media said about him were factually incorrect. For some people, anything less than 100% compliance is unacceptable. (Often heretics are more triggering than full enemies, because the enemies at least fit into the black-and-white picture, while the heretic ruins it.)

Third, in the discussions below the articles, multiple political opinions are allowed. Again, this is quite triggering for some people, because according to their logic, why would you allow anyone to express their opinion on your website, unless you actually agree with them? Of course, this is reported selectively, like "did you know there are fans of reactionary politics on SSC?!" without mentioning that they are debating there with e.g. hardcore stalinists, and that both sides are just a small minority in the mostly moderate audience.

The second and third point are why some people are so eager to expose Scott's identity, and the first point is why he tries to prevent it.

Re: Update on My Situation

#130

Post by Viliam1234 »

thatguy0900 wrote: post #4
zepto wrote: post #3

So the New York Times cost him his job?

I'm torn on this. On the one hand, there's really no real reason for NYT to have refused to not publish his name, and also refuse to drop the story when he made clear how uncomfortable he was with being doxxed, a reasonable thing for his profession. On the other hand, his response was so extreme and scorched earthy I find it difficult to blame the outcome on the New York Times. I guess I just have to take him at his…

What could be the less extreme response that would make NYT not write about the blog and mention his real name? Clearly, asking politely didn't work.
Post reply on HN