3 ms·
No. 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 b
by mellosouls 6y ago
No. 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.