4 ms·

I'm honestly curious, what could make one loathe SSC? Overall it seems pretty anodyne even if you're not into the whole rationalist milieu.

by ims 6y ago

errantspark 6y ago
Seconding this, I honestly find it hard to understand having strong feeling one way or another on such a neutral essayist. Though perhaps it's quite telling that I consider him to be "neutral"?
- tptacek 6y ago
  I do not think that's telling. I think a lot of good people think that S.A. is benign. Part of it might be whether or not you're a "read the comments" kind of person; part of it may be whether or not you pay attention to who he's linking to and referencing (or whether you care about that kind of thing). Some of it is overt; he's taken active stands on some issues that are, if nothing else, not neutral. But I'm only rattling those things off so you can understand how someone could come to a different conclusion about SSC than you do. I think what's going on with SSC is subtle enough that it's dangerous to make judgements about people simply based on whether they get value out of SSC.
  - errantspark 6y ago
    I've probably read < 10 of his posts and on the whole he did seem extremely benign. He had a large body of work so perhaps I just had a huge sampling bias. I meant to specifically ask for some criticism you had of SSC as a self described person on the 'loathing' side of things as purely a point of curiosity. It's a strong word and I'm specifically curious how someone who to me seemed so benign gained your condemnation.
    - tptacek 6y ago
      Honestly I've said about as much about SSC itself as I want to. I don't think it's productive to debate whether SSC is good or bad, because that's not the issue here. I don't think S.A. deserves being outed because he presides over a community I happen to find problematic; I think he's not being outed, since he's been operating in the open for years.
      - netsharc 6y ago
        Late to the thread commenter here, but geez, being asked "what criticisms do you have" and deflecting with this response makes me wonder why you're trying to hide the reason(s) you dislike him...
        philwelch 6y ago
        I think anatoly was in the right ballpark, to put it mildly.
        pvg 6y ago
        Someone's a culture warrior because they don't share someone else's taste in blogs? Which one is supposed to be the culture warrior?
        philwelch 6y ago
        I wouldn’t put it that way; that’s why I said Anatoly was in the ballpark.
        pvg 6y ago
        The original characterization and the comment manage to be rude, condescending and passive-aggressive all at once. It's straight up explaining to someone what their own motivations and tastes are. I honestly don't understand what the ballpark is supposed to be, the whole sport seems awful.
anatoly 6y ago
Committed culture warriors often seem to loathe SSC. From their perspective, it gives too much credence and attention to obviously evil ideas, and the author is in thrall to the worst elements of the Other Side (than the one the culture warrior is coming from). That many people especially admire SSC for even-handedness, which they see as false, is especially infuriating to them.
- tptacek 6y ago
  Is that what I am? A "committed culture warrior"? Could you say more about what that means?
  - anatoly 6y ago
    Well, does the rest of the comment ring true to why you think you loathe SSC? I can't reach into your head. Maybe you just really dislike his punctuation. Or, more plausibly, think he has an insufferably smarmy tone. FWIW I've been admiring your HN posts for many years. When I see your handle in an HN discussion, my learned expectation is of knowledge and insight.
joveian 6y ago
While I wouldn't pick the exact word "loathe", the thing that really did it for me when I was reading SSC a while back was finding that one of the regular commenters who Scott engaged with positively had written a book that talked about how Obama should have stuck to jobs that were more "genetically suitable" for him. There were plenty of comments about this person being "controversial" on the blog so it isn't likely that Scott just didn't know.

I'm honestly curious, what could make one loathe SSC? Overall it seems pretty anodyne even if you're not into the whole rationalist milieu.

by ims 6y ago

I'm honestly curious, what could make one loathe SSC? Overall it seems pretty anodyne even if you're not into the whole rationalist milieu.

errantspark 6y ago

Seconding this, I honestly find it hard to understand having strong feeling one way or another on such a neutral essayist. Though perhaps it's quite telling that I consider him to be "neutral"?

tptacek 6y ago
I do not think that's telling. I think a lot of good people think that S.A. is benign. Part of it might be whether or not you're a "read the comments" kind of person; part of it may be whether or not you pay attention to who he's linking to and referencing (or whether you care about that kind of thing). Some of it is overt; he's taken active stands on some issues that are, if nothing else, not neutral. But I'm only rattling those things off so you can understand how someone could come to a different conclusion about SSC than you do. I think what's going on with SSC is subtle enough that it's dangerous to make judgements about people simply based on whether they get value out of SSC.
- errantspark 6y ago
  I've probably read < 10 of his posts and on the whole he did seem extremely benign. He had a large body of work so perhaps I just had a huge sampling bias. I meant to specifically ask for some criticism you had of SSC as a self described person on the 'loathing' side of things as purely a point of curiosity. It's a strong word and I'm specifically curious how someone who to me seemed so benign gained your condemnation.
  - tptacek 6y ago
    Honestly I've said about as much about SSC itself as I want to. I don't think it's productive to debate whether SSC is good or bad, because that's not the issue here. I don't think S.A. deserves being outed because he presides over a community I happen to find problematic; I think he's not being outed, since he's been operating in the open for years.
    - netsharc 6y ago
      Late to the thread commenter here, but geez, being asked "what criticisms do you have" and deflecting with this response makes me wonder why you're trying to hide the reason(s) you dislike him...
      - philwelch 6y ago
        I think anatoly was in the right ballpark, to put it mildly.
        pvg 6y ago
        Someone's a culture warrior because they don't share someone else's taste in blogs? Which one is supposed to be the culture warrior?
        philwelch 6y ago
        I wouldn’t put it that way; that’s why I said Anatoly was in the ballpark.
        pvg 6y ago
        The original characterization and the comment manage to be rude, condescending and passive-aggressive all at once. It's straight up explaining to someone what their own motivations and tastes are. I honestly don't understand what the ballpark is supposed to be, the whole sport seems awful.

anatoly 6y ago

Committed culture warriors often seem to loathe SSC. From their perspective, it gives too much credence and attention to obviously evil ideas, and the author is in thrall to the worst elements of the Other Side (than the one the culture warrior is coming from). That many people especially admire SSC for even-handedness, which they see as false, is especially infuriating to them.

tptacek 6y ago
Is that what I am? A "committed culture warrior"? Could you say more about what that means?
- anatoly 6y ago
  Well, does the rest of the comment ring true to why you think you loathe SSC? I can't reach into your head. Maybe you just really dislike his punctuation. Or, more plausibly, think he has an insufferably smarmy tone. FWIW I've been admiring your HN posts for many years. When I see your handle in an HN discussion, my learned expectation is of knowledge and insight.

joveian 6y ago

While I wouldn't pick the exact word "loathe", the thing that really did it for me when I was reading SSC a while back was finding that one of the regular commenters who Scott engaged with positively had written a book that talked about how Obama should have stuck to jobs that were more "genetically suitable" for him. There were plenty of comments about this person being "controversial" on the blog so it isn't likely that Scott just didn't know.