I don’t have a stake in either side here but there are a lot of racist comments in this guy’s blog to the point that the lack of moderation makes me wonder if he supports them. Honestly if I had “fans” like this I’d reconsider the impact of my blogging entirely and maybe consider taking up a hobby that doesn’t serve as a racist lightning rod.
Statement on New York Times Article
271–280 of 437 posts
Re: Statement on New York Times Article
#272Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you point to any examples that you found particularly annoying?
[flagged]
>I think I originally started reading his stuff because he had informed and humorous takedowns of some extremist libertarian/fascist ideas like neoreaction and dark enlightenment, but I guess to know that much about the topics probably is a reflection of the circles he's moving in.
So you read and liked stuff that confirmed your likely ideological priors, but you disliked stuff that questioned them.
Do you actually expect a less-partial observer to agree that the fault here is with Scott rather than you?
Re: Statement on New York Times Article
#273The clever playground bully doesn't say "let's beat up Scott", at least not where teachers can hear - he knows he can say something like "Scott annoyed me a bit yesterday" and his followers/admirers will know that beating up Scott might just earn them popularity points.
The clever mafia boss, at least in the movies, doesn't leave a paper trail showing they've ordered a hit job on someone, they say something like wouldn't it be convenient if Scott weren't seen around here for a while?
(Even Trump had the sense not to say directly on camera, let's break into the capitol and smash things up.)
The NYT piece has an ugly taste of "I'm not going to say I endorse direct action against Scott, BUT" when it lists how he could be seen as "associated" with sexists, racists and so on. Let's not pretend otherwise: Cade Metz knows exactly that lesser accusations have brought people down in the past.
Re: Statement on New York Times Article
#274Earlier quoted context omitted.
This has increasingly happened with topics I know about over the past five years at accelerating rate. [If you want to be uncomfortable, consider noticing this repeatedly is part of what has driven half of the US mad.]
An interjection here. Not directly related to the NYT article, just your comment. I feel the entire US has "gone mad". I'm a Canuck, and US and Canadian politics don't 'mesh'. So whenever I've spoken to Americans over the decades, often their politics make little sense, don't align, seem cogent to me. This, of course, I consider normal for a non-local such as myself. However over the last decade or so, I've noticed t…
One of my favorite moments of the past five years is getting called a "trumpist piece of shit". The discussion was something about rural decay and inequality and I think I implied they had reason to be angry. I did not vote for Trump.
In one group of former co-workers I've quit speaking to almost all of them because of the above.
Re: Statement on New York Times Article
#275Earlier quoted context omitted.
A while back I mentioned to my mother that I had been to a "reddit meet up" and my mother, predictably, had never heard of reddit. Later, reddit made the news, I forget exactly what for, but in was the category of harboring child pornographers, racists, or nude celebrity photos. What I did remember is hoping my mother didn't see this news article and conclude that I was out meeting with racist pedophiles. The thing i…
Specifically about the feminist point: The quote is explicitly only about "people who talk about “Nice Guys” – and the people who enable them, praise them, and link to them". ( https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_p... ) This leads to several keys questions: Are all feminist such people who talk about "nice guys" and who enable, praise and link to them? The second question is, are all people who…
>The quote is explicitly only about "people who talk about “Nice Guys”
He refers to the "already rather thin line between 'feminism' and literally 'Voldermort'", so it's clear that he's talking about feminism more broadly. Elsewhere in his writings there are statements that are completely consistent with this. For example, here he is alluding in passing to the supposed fact that only 30% of feminists are "sane": https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/10/20/the-anti-reactionary-f... At some point you've just got to accept that he's been broadly critical of the feminist movement, and said disparaging things about large numbers of feminists (in aggregate).
My personal take away from this is that editors are good. Scott's ended up writing a long series of unedited blog posts, and as a consequence has made some comments over the years that are flippant, exaggerated, in poor taste, or just plain wrong. Such are the perils of blogging. That's his responsibility. The NYT has no obligation to shield him from it.
Re: Statement on New York Times Article
#276Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's that time where the legacy media threatened to doxx someone if they made memes they didn't like again: >CNN is not publishing "HanA*holeSolo's" name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said h…
I don’t understand why people believe that anonymity is a right guaranteed to all people making content on the internet.
It's not a legal right if that's what you're getting at. Otherwise, do you also not understand why basically all platforms have pretty assertive (if questionably enforced) anti-doxxing rules?
Re: Statement on New York Times Article
#277The clever playground bully doesn't say "let's beat up Scott", at least not where teachers can hear - he knows he can say something like "Scott annoyed me a bit yesterday" and his followers/admirers will know that beating up Scott might just earn them popularity points. The clever mafia boss, at least in the movies, doesn't leave a paper trail showing they've ordered a hit job on someone, they say something like woul…
You could make the same point about this article.
Re: Statement on New York Times Article
#278What I find noteworthy about this story is how contentious and weaponized have gender and race become. Out of the four negative claims, one accused Scott of racism and two accused him of of some variant of misogyny. The fourth associated him with some other form of non-pure thinking. I am afraid things will get worse before they get better. I expect the trumpism/fascism wave will provoke unhealthy reaction and furthe…
[deleted]
Re: Statement on New York Times Article
#279I don't understand why the NYT would do something like this. I will continue to read the NYT but with a different feeling, it eroded my trust. More missteps and I will loose my trust. This is just unacceptable, especially in the times of fake news. I think the piece just does not have any arguments, it's just based on held beliefs that some things are wrong. It's just connects dots and quotes sentences that offend a…
>EDIT: And I just don't get why on earth they have to reveal his name if he does not want the NYT to reveal it? What does it add to the story? It's a persons life they are playing with.
I recommend you read the NYT peice then, because it points out that if they publish his name as Scott Alexander (as he was going by) people would find out who he was simply by Googling that name. How exactly is the NYT meant to guarantee that? And what was the result of Siskind's actions? He stirred up a mob against the NYT writer exactly in the same way he feared he would've been subject to.
Re: Statement on New York Times Article
#280The clever playground bully doesn't say "let's beat up Scott", at least not where teachers can hear - he knows he can say something like "Scott annoyed me a bit yesterday" and his followers/admirers will know that beating up Scott might just earn them popularity points. The clever mafia boss, at least in the movies, doesn't leave a paper trail showing they've ordered a hit job on someone, they say something like woul…
You could make the same point about this article.
I think it's very unlikely that a SSC reader will commit any kind of crime against a NYT reporter or their friends and families - they're much more the kind of people [in favour of niceness, community and civilisation](https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/23/in-favor-of-niceness-c...)
To quote Scott:
> Liberalism does not conquer by fire and sword. Liberalism conquers by communities of people who agree to play by the rules, slowly growing until eventually an equilibrium is disturbed. Its battle cry is not "Death to the unbelievers!" but "If you’re nice, you can join our cuddle pile!"