3 ms·
The comment I'm replying to suggests the journalist maybe misrepresented the nature of the story. Please don't misrepresent my comment. I merely clarified tha
by mellosouls 6y ago
The 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.