3 ms·

Is this like the joke about the condemned engineer who knows how to fix the faulty guillotine? I think Scott is correctly concerned that a Twitter mob might tr

by nkurz 6y ago

Is this like the joke about the condemned engineer who knows how to fix the faulty guillotine? I think Scott is correctly concerned that a Twitter mob might try to get him fired as a result of his blog. I don't really understand his reasoning for taking it down now, but I presume "real name in a national publication" was a pre-arranged line-in-the-sand for him. I think his actual opinions are secondary; the real problem is that he's clearly not fully supportive of team SJW. I suspect the main problem wouldn't be his own opinions, but that he allows others to discuss "unacceptable" topics on his site. His window for acceptable doesn't include everything (white nationalism was out) but is much wider than most. That said, I found SSC to be the best place on the internet for hearing people calmly explain views I disagree with --- and I disagree with almost everyone! There aren't a lot of places where atheists and Catholics would productively discuss why they felt the way they do about abortion, where former Mennonites could explain how community health care works without insurance, where Marxists could try to explain to gun nuts what they have in common, or where a self-proclaimed a Social Justice Warrior can field questions from an anarcho-capitalist economic professors about redistribution. I probably spent about an hour a day reading comments there, and felt that it was time fairly well spent. Although I'm mostly a reader rather than poster, for a few years now it's been my primary contact with the outside world. I'll miss it, and don't know if there will be anywhere that can replace it.

tptacek 6y ago
You're making an impassioned case for something I'm not arguing about. I hold SSC itself somewhat in contempt, but I don't feel that way about everyone who gets value from it, and I'm not here to debate you about whether SSC is good or bad. You can think it's good while I think it's very bad. What I don't understand is why it is that Scott Alexander feels like he's in danger from having his affiliation with the blog exposed, while at the same time it's so clear to everyone who peruses the site that it's open-minded and productive and wholesome. If that's the case, what's so alarming about the attribution? What form does this supposed cancellation take? You've just claimed that white nationalism is off the table --- I disagree, but will happily stipulate. So what is it then? You've got a better imagination for what could happen than I do, since I think there's virtually no risk for Scott Alexander at all. Can you share more about what you foresee happening? Is it some citation to some horrible TheMotte commenter? What is that commenter saying? I mean, let's be clear right up in front: one thing we can't really debate at this point is whether Scott Alexander is "out". He's out. It's over. The NYT could shitcan the article (I kind of hope it does) and nothing will change; Scott Alexander has seen to that. So what do you think might happen next?
- nkurz 6y ago
  > why it is that Scott Alexander feels like he's in danger I think Scott's fear (rightly or wrongly) isn't that his own opinions will be his downfall, but that those politically on his own side will attack him for providing a platform to the enemy. I think he sees himself in the same position as Steve Hsu, who was just forced out of his position at Michigan State despite Scott's attempt at public support. The were various criticisms of Hsu, but the main ones seemed to be that he provided a platform for people with unacceptable opinions (Stefan Molyneaux, Ron Unz). I don't think these two are active on SSC, but given anonymous handles, they might turn out to be. Others with bad reputations (Steve Sailer comes to mind) post there civilly, and are treated with respect. I think indisputably there exist some people who consider this to be grounds for "cancellation". > What form does this supposed cancellation take? The same as pushed out Steve Hsu: public pressure by a small number of people against his employer for his promotion/tolerance/association with someone who holds less socially acceptable opinions than he does. Scott's view (and mine) is that it's better to have open discussion of unpopular opinions so that they can either be refuted or become accepted. Others think that the ideas are too dangerous to be discussed, and discussion needs to be prevented lest they become more widespread. Some of those who hold this second belief have shown themselves to be effective at pressuring employers to fire those who they choose as their targets. > one thing we can't really debate at this point is whether Scott Alexander is "out" I think you are viewing things with more of a binary computer security point-of-view than is appropriate: in normal life obscurity does make a difference. Making up numbers, at this point, 99.99% of the world has never heard of Scott by either his real name or his pen name. Of the remaining .01%, 1 out of 100 know him only by his real name as a local psychiatrist, 98 out of 100 know him by only by his pen name as a blogger, and 1 knows and associates both identities. A prominent NYT article might double the number of people who associate his identities, and he thinks this might double his risk of having professional problems. Is he wrong? Maybe, but I can see why he has the fear even if he thinks his beliefs and approach are overall good for the world. > You can think it's good while I think it's very bad. I think this thread has run its course, but perhaps in some future one (if it comes up) you could explain what you think made SSC "very bad". Like HN, I feel it had problems as a community, but was overall a good thing: it enabled better direct communication between people who otherwise communicate only through garbled media proxies. Is this the problem itself, or do you agree that this is a a positive but think it is outweighed by something larger?
KirinDave 6y ago
What's hard for me to square about this explanation is that the "team SJW" persecution voltron you've constructed has known about and pointed out that Scott openly supports extremely bigoted views and has gone to bat for the widely-discredited "Bell Curve" more than once. He's also written some stuff that's had a positive impact on the (white) trans community and folks have charged him over that as well. This is all very "last decade" stuff. But now we've entered a world where Scott has pulled what really looks like a Moldbug-style publicity stunt where he wants to pick a fight with groups that his community have latent biases against ("liberals", "SJWs", "anti-rationalists" and of course the big one: "the press."). Despite mobilizing a substantial fraction of the richest people in America to his defense (and despite doing exactly what he claimed shouldn't be done: fully naming a reporter that might publish a story, I might add), he's still also pretending to be a victim. But the reality is that every consequence thus far has been directly of his own construction. He pulled his own blog down out of "fear" that folks might discover it, despite being "doxxed" at least 3 times before. To me, the most challenging part of all this is that we're suggesting that writers who write racist material have a "right" to not be called to task if that's financially damaging. It suggests that because you find his writing pleasant, that we should protect it from the consequence of its substance. And the specific consequence is that, "His patients might make informed decisions about what he's said." They might not appreciate him naming dates, locations, diagnosis and specific medications prescribed. They might not want to be treated by someone who doesn't believe in their unique bigotry against trans people. They might not want to listen to someone who quietly believes they're genetically predisposed to inferiority. Given that Scott has essentially made NO effort to keep a pseudonym and has explicitly said, "I don't want this piece to come out because I'm concerned about the impacts to my business," I can't avoid the conclusion that I should treat Scott exactly the same way as I treated Moldbug. And just like then, I got a lot of pushback here for that decision. A pushback that evaporated with not so much as a whoosh of air when Milo Yiannopoulos's email leak revealed long dissertations by Moldbug on specifically how to engage with militant nazis to enlist them to his cause. To be clear: I don't think such a revelation is in the background for Scott. I think his racism is the quiet self-assuredness of the American intellectual that's socialized to accept racist policies and ideas if you can place enough layers of indirection around the concepts. I think he's the sort of person for whom grammarian arguments really are a compelling counter-argument to racism. This makes him unremarkable in every way except that he can mobilize so many rich and connected people to his "defense."

by nkurz 6y ago

tptacek 6y ago

You're making an impassioned case for something I'm not arguing about. I hold SSC itself somewhat in contempt, but I don't feel that way about everyone who gets value from it, and I'm not here to debate you about whether SSC is good or bad. You can think it's good while I think it's very bad. What I don't understand is why it is that Scott Alexander feels like he's in danger from having his affiliation with the blog exposed, while at the same time it's so clear to everyone who peruses the site that it's open-minded and productive and wholesome. If that's the case, what's so alarming about the attribution? What form does this supposed cancellation take? You've just claimed that white nationalism is off the table --- I disagree, but will happily stipulate. So what is it then? You've got a better imagination for what could happen than I do, since I think there's virtually no risk for Scott Alexander at all. Can you share more about what you foresee happening? Is it some citation to some horrible TheMotte commenter? What is that commenter saying? I mean, let's be clear right up in front: one thing we can't really debate at this point is whether Scott Alexander is "out". He's out. It's over. The NYT could shitcan the article (I kind of hope it does) and nothing will change; Scott Alexander has seen to that. So what do you think might happen next?

nkurz 6y ago
> why it is that Scott Alexander feels like he's in danger I think Scott's fear (rightly or wrongly) isn't that his own opinions will be his downfall, but that those politically on his own side will attack him for providing a platform to the enemy. I think he sees himself in the same position as Steve Hsu, who was just forced out of his position at Michigan State despite Scott's attempt at public support. The were various criticisms of Hsu, but the main ones seemed to be that he provided a platform for people with unacceptable opinions (Stefan Molyneaux, Ron Unz). I don't think these two are active on SSC, but given anonymous handles, they might turn out to be. Others with bad reputations (Steve Sailer comes to mind) post there civilly, and are treated with respect. I think indisputably there exist some people who consider this to be grounds for "cancellation". > What form does this supposed cancellation take? The same as pushed out Steve Hsu: public pressure by a small number of people against his employer for his promotion/tolerance/association with someone who holds less socially acceptable opinions than he does. Scott's view (and mine) is that it's better to have open discussion of unpopular opinions so that they can either be refuted or become accepted. Others think that the ideas are too dangerous to be discussed, and discussion needs to be prevented lest they become more widespread. Some of those who hold this second belief have shown themselves to be effective at pressuring employers to fire those who they choose as their targets. > one thing we can't really debate at this point is whether Scott Alexander is "out" I think you are viewing things with more of a binary computer security point-of-view than is appropriate: in normal life obscurity does make a difference. Making up numbers, at this point, 99.99% of the world has never heard of Scott by either his real name or his pen name. Of the remaining .01%, 1 out of 100 know him only by his real name as a local psychiatrist, 98 out of 100 know him by only by his pen name as a blogger, and 1 knows and associates both identities. A prominent NYT article might double the number of people who associate his identities, and he thinks this might double his risk of having professional problems. Is he wrong? Maybe, but I can see why he has the fear even if he thinks his beliefs and approach are overall good for the world. > You can think it's good while I think it's very bad. I think this thread has run its course, but perhaps in some future one (if it comes up) you could explain what you think made SSC "very bad". Like HN, I feel it had problems as a community, but was overall a good thing: it enabled better direct communication between people who otherwise communicate only through garbled media proxies. Is this the problem itself, or do you agree that this is a a positive but think it is outweighed by something larger?

KirinDave 6y ago

What's hard for me to square about this explanation is that the "team SJW" persecution voltron you've constructed has known about and pointed out that Scott openly supports extremely bigoted views and has gone to bat for the widely-discredited "Bell Curve" more than once. He's also written some stuff that's had a positive impact on the (white) trans community and folks have charged him over that as well. This is all very "last decade" stuff. But now we've entered a world where Scott has pulled what really looks like a Moldbug-style publicity stunt where he wants to pick a fight with groups that his community have latent biases against ("liberals", "SJWs", "anti-rationalists" and of course the big one: "the press."). Despite mobilizing a substantial fraction of the richest people in America to his defense (and despite doing exactly what he claimed shouldn't be done: fully naming a reporter that might publish a story, I might add), he's still also pretending to be a victim. But the reality is that every consequence thus far has been directly of his own construction. He pulled his own blog down out of "fear" that folks might discover it, despite being "doxxed" at least 3 times before. To me, the most challenging part of all this is that we're suggesting that writers who write racist material have a "right" to not be called to task if that's financially damaging. It suggests that because you find his writing pleasant, that we should protect it from the consequence of its substance. And the specific consequence is that, "His patients might make informed decisions about what he's said." They might not appreciate him naming dates, locations, diagnosis and specific medications prescribed. They might not want to be treated by someone who doesn't believe in their unique bigotry against trans people. They might not want to listen to someone who quietly believes they're genetically predisposed to inferiority. Given that Scott has essentially made NO effort to keep a pseudonym and has explicitly said, "I don't want this piece to come out because I'm concerned about the impacts to my business," I can't avoid the conclusion that I should treat Scott exactly the same way as I treated Moldbug. And just like then, I got a lot of pushback here for that decision. A pushback that evaporated with not so much as a whoosh of air when Milo Yiannopoulos's email leak revealed long dissertations by Moldbug on specifically how to engage with militant nazis to enlist them to his cause. To be clear: I don't think such a revelation is in the background for Scott. I think his racism is the quiet self-assuredness of the American intellectual that's socialized to accept racist policies and ideas if you can place enough layers of indirection around the concepts. I think he's the sort of person for whom grammarian arguments really are a compelling counter-argument to racism. This makes him unremarkable in every way except that he can mobilize so many rich and connected people to his "defense."