5 ms·
> Everything we know about this story is entirely his portrayal and version of it. This isn't true. Multiple other people on the SSC blog talked with the repo
by nkurz 6y ago
> Everything we know about this story is entirely his portrayal and version of it.
This isn't true. Multiple other people on the SSC blog talked with the reporter, and they publicly compared notes on their impressions. Just because you haven't read these other sources doesn't allow you to claim that these versions don't exist.
Wait... Even the linked piece by Aaronson says: So in recent weeks, I’d spent a couple hours on the phone with Cade, answering his questions about the rationality community, the history of my interactions with it, and why I thought SlateStarCodex spoke to so many readers.
So presumably you have read reports from at least two people who had contact with the reporter. Why then do you say that it is solely "one party's representation"?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- pvg 6y agoThe comment I'm replying to suggests the journalist maybe misrepresented the nature of the story. The evidence for this is, well, none. And as to the nature of the story itself, we have neither the story nor the journalist's description of the interactions in question.
- mellosouls 6y agoThe comment I'm replying to suggests the journalist maybe misrepresented the nature of the story. Please don't misrepresent my comment. I merely clarified that Professor Aaronson's account of the NYT's intent (and even assuming its good faith, the consequences of the piece for Scott Alexander) is opinion only.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- pvg 6y agoI'm ok with how I've represented your comment. You are not 'merely clarifying', you're implying the journalist is being dishonest. Then you slather on the conspiratorial 'certain elements of the Ctrl-Left to warrant a cancel-attack'. It's a comment that would only benefit from some misrepresentation since the more literally one reads it, the worse it sounds.
- mellosouls 6y agoNo. That is entirely your biased reading of my comment, presumably because of your sensitivity to references to the Ctrl-Left. It's a comment that would only benefit from some misrepresentation But I thank you for the admission.
- pvg 6y ago'No. That's what the NYT said it was going to be' This plainly suggests the NYT is misrepresenting something or likely to do so. You even added the emphasis, in case it was unclear. My sensitivity is not to the 'ctrl-left' but the completely unwarranted weird conspiratorial stuff that some mob is out to 'cancel' the blogger, armed with the name they got from the NYT. That they could have just googled. It's, at best, mildly silly.
- mellosouls 6y agoNo, it's suggesting that Scott Alexander is wise to be cautious. That you consider caution in the context of repeated cancel-attacks on anything not on-message with the Ctrl-Left is "weird" and "conspiratorial" and "silly" indicates a personal bias you are unaware of and should reflect on before commenting further.