8 ms·

Watching people who hate cancel culture try to cancel the NYT is hilarious. Watching them try to cancel individual NYT writers is gross. All because Scott Alex

by mrkurt 6y ago

Watching people who hate cancel culture try to cancel the NYT is hilarious. Watching them try to cancel individual NYT writers is gross. All because Scott Alexander retroactively decided his last name is private information and threw a tantrum.

atdrummond 6y ago
Where is this canceling occurring? I saw quite a few people here, as well as the two SSC subreddits, going out of their way to encourage polite outreach to the editor and to avoid antagonizing the actual author. So far as to discourage the naming of the author. Not denying it may be happening, it just does not seem to jive with the majority response (in my bubble).
- mrkurt 6y ago
  I'm not sure how directly the cancelling is affiliated with SSC, but the #ghostnyt hashtag is a pretty good cancellation motion. The only thing that's really reached my bubble has been outrage and cancellation, though. https://twitter.com/hashtag/ghostnyt https://twitter.com/hashtag/ghostnyt
  - whatshisface 6y ago
    "They tweeted something bad" -> "get them fired," is substantially different from, "the reporters working for this organization are dangerous," -> "don't talk to them." One is going on the offense, the other is defensive.
  - charia 6y ago
    I'm fairly sure that #ghostnyt was a reaction to the NYTimes airing of the Tom Cotton op-ed. I don't doubt that some SSC fans latched onto it, but I'd be surprised if even a third of those using #ghostnyt were from SSC aligned people.
  - lkbm 6y ago
    EDIT: Would work better if I spelled "NYT" correctly. Oops. Still looks like all SA tweets, though[1]. EDIT 2: Whoops, this was meant as a reply to charia's point. This reply about Scott Alexander appears to be the first usage[0]: https://twitter.com/ChrisSt41125908/status/1275557789415464962 https://twitter.com/ChrisSt41125908/status/12755577894154649... [0] https://twitter.com/search?q=until%3A2020-06-24%20since%3A2020-01-01%20%23ghostnyc&src=typed_query https://twitter.com/search?q=until%3A2020-06-24%20since%3A20... [1] https://twitter.com/search?q=until%3A2020-06-24%20since%3A2020-01-01%20%23ghostnyt&src=typed_query https://twitter.com/search?q=until%3A2020-06-24%20since%3A20...
whatshisface 6y ago
What's your last name? I think an extremely small fraction of the accounts here would want to tell people their full real life names.
- mrkurt 6y ago
  My last name is easy to find. My first name is Kurt, I live in Chicago, I work on startups. I've published with my last name within the last decade. Scott Alexander's last name is also easy to find. His first name is Scott, his middle name is Alexander, he's a psychiatrist, and he lives in Michigan. This is all information he publicized. And he has also published under his last name, even on SSC, within the last decade.
  - whatshisface 6y ago
    I'm confused, are you agreeing with Scott? Both of you have last names that are "easy to find," but neither of you are purposely making it easily available. You both believe that there is a difference between "technically can be found" and "is printed everywhere my pseudonym is." If I were to write your last name in this comment, I would be going against your implied wishes, where your implied wishes are visible because you didn't write it in your comment.
    - mrkurt 6y ago
      Is the bar for doxing really that low now? My last name is not private. Nor is Scott Alexander's. My implied wishes (and really, his wishes) aren't terribly important. If either of us do something newsworthy, it's not doxing to attach our name to the news.
      - ardy42 6y ago
        > Is the bar for doxing really that low now? Also, if merely linking a real name to a pseudonymous online identity is doxing, then Alexander self-doxxed himself by republishing one of his SSC posts under his real name (while noting their origin) in book published by Springer. An accurate definition of doxing would contain several components, a few of which would be: it's not doxing if you make the link yourself, and it's not doxing for a 3rd party to repeat the link you made (akin to the first sale doctrine).
seibelj 6y ago
I think the Harper's letter[0] being viciously attacked on the left is what's hilarious. There are no conservatives remaining in the left media, so they have to find new enemies among each other. This is textbook witch hunt / McCarthyism stuff. I just keep eating popcorn and watching it unfold! [0] https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/ https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/
- TeaDrunk 6y ago
  I don't understand why it's necessary to bring this up or its relation at all with SSC or the New Yorker piece.
  - throwawaysea 6y ago
    I am speculating on behalf of GP, but I think the reason it might be relevant is because the New Yorker has a far-left bias (https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart) and the motivation to go after SSC in the first place (for some on the left) seems to be that SSC's author and comments on SSC were willing to hold objective conversations about race and other touchy matters that the far left often dismisses as off limits (for instance using the label of "scientific racism"). This Harper's letter is in support of open debate, free inquiry, and free thought, and therefore it is in effect in support of SSC. Free thought and free inquiry and the freedom to research/discuss/publish unpopular ideas has been a hot topic in recent times. For instance, see the protest of Omar Wasow's paper on protesting (https://www.chronicle.com/article/The-Protesting-of-a-Protest/249129 https://www.chronicle.com/article/The-Protesting-of-a-Protes...) or the firing of Steven Hsu (https://quillette.com/2020/07/01/on-steve-hsu-and-the-campaign-to-thwart-free-inquiry/ https://quillette.com/2020/07/01/on-steve-hsu-and-the-campai...).
NicolasGorden 6y ago
I feel motive is important. Was there backlash because the NYT published an opinion some disagree with? Or was PPI going to be exposed that hurt a medical professional maintain his practice? I think one carries a very real reason for backlash. The other, not so much. Also, what was being requested? Did Scott make this personal and ask for someone to get fired? If he did, equating this with actions like that makes sense. If not, it makes no sense. Last, your use of the word tantrum for an adult making rational decisions related to the well being of himself and his patients only highlights your own emotive state.
- mrkurt 6y ago
  Personal information that Scott Alexander _already published_ was going to be republished. He's published all his own personal info repeatedly for years. Deleting a site you've posted on thousands of times is a quality tantrum.
  - NicolasGorden 6y ago
    You can consider it an over-reaction. But calling it a tantrum, using that specific word, really highlights your flared emotions. When people resort to value laden language instead of more objective, reasonable language, it says a lot about their mindset. On the actual subject, scale and magnitude are issues that most rational beings consider. His avoiding people knowing his name on scale makes sense. Our society in general has even codified this difference in law by separating 'public figures' from 'private individuals'. It seems disingenuous to ignore this concern or equate using your name online with having it published on one of the most read publications in the world.
    - mrkurt 6y ago
      I like emotion, thanks. The church of rationality is not my bag.
      - NicolasGorden 6y ago
        I thank you for your honesty. At least your being open about your position. Too many times people argue against rationality in disguise, acting like they like it but secretly hating it.
chippy 6y ago
In the US currently it appears that "cancel" equates to "criticize". There's no nuance possible, seems to me, so why bother? It's no wonder so many people are not playing the game. Equally so it's telling that "silence equals consent" is the reaction to people checking out of the game - the invested players and GMs really don't like people not playing along.

by mrkurt 6y ago

atdrummond 6y ago

Where is this canceling occurring? I saw quite a few people here, as well as the two SSC subreddits, going out of their way to encourage polite outreach to the editor and to avoid antagonizing the actual author. So far as to discourage the naming of the author. Not denying it may be happening, it just does not seem to jive with the majority response (in my bubble).

mrkurt 6y ago
I'm not sure how directly the cancelling is affiliated with SSC, but the #ghostnyt hashtag is a pretty good cancellation motion. The only thing that's really reached my bubble has been outrage and cancellation, though. https://twitter.com/hashtag/ghostnyt https://twitter.com/hashtag/ghostnyt
- whatshisface 6y ago
  "They tweeted something bad" -> "get them fired," is substantially different from, "the reporters working for this organization are dangerous," -> "don't talk to them." One is going on the offense, the other is defensive.
- charia 6y ago
  I'm fairly sure that #ghostnyt was a reaction to the NYTimes airing of the Tom Cotton op-ed. I don't doubt that some SSC fans latched onto it, but I'd be surprised if even a third of those using #ghostnyt were from SSC aligned people.
- lkbm 6y ago
  EDIT: Would work better if I spelled "NYT" correctly. Oops. Still looks like all SA tweets, though[1]. EDIT 2: Whoops, this was meant as a reply to charia's point. This reply about Scott Alexander appears to be the first usage[0]: https://twitter.com/ChrisSt41125908/status/1275557789415464962 https://twitter.com/ChrisSt41125908/status/12755577894154649... [0] https://twitter.com/search?q=until%3A2020-06-24%20since%3A2020-01-01%20%23ghostnyc&src=typed_query https://twitter.com/search?q=until%3A2020-06-24%20since%3A20... [1] https://twitter.com/search?q=until%3A2020-06-24%20since%3A2020-01-01%20%23ghostnyt&src=typed_query https://twitter.com/search?q=until%3A2020-06-24%20since%3A20...

whatshisface 6y ago

What's your last name? I think an extremely small fraction of the accounts here would want to tell people their full real life names.

mrkurt 6y ago
My last name is easy to find. My first name is Kurt, I live in Chicago, I work on startups. I've published with my last name within the last decade. Scott Alexander's last name is also easy to find. His first name is Scott, his middle name is Alexander, he's a psychiatrist, and he lives in Michigan. This is all information he publicized. And he has also published under his last name, even on SSC, within the last decade.
- whatshisface 6y ago
  I'm confused, are you agreeing with Scott? Both of you have last names that are "easy to find," but neither of you are purposely making it easily available. You both believe that there is a difference between "technically can be found" and "is printed everywhere my pseudonym is." If I were to write your last name in this comment, I would be going against your implied wishes, where your implied wishes are visible because you didn't write it in your comment.
  - mrkurt 6y ago
    Is the bar for doxing really that low now? My last name is not private. Nor is Scott Alexander's. My implied wishes (and really, his wishes) aren't terribly important. If either of us do something newsworthy, it's not doxing to attach our name to the news.
    - ardy42 6y ago
      > Is the bar for doxing really that low now? Also, if merely linking a real name to a pseudonymous online identity is doxing, then Alexander self-doxxed himself by republishing one of his SSC posts under his real name (while noting their origin) in book published by Springer. An accurate definition of doxing would contain several components, a few of which would be: it's not doxing if you make the link yourself, and it's not doxing for a 3rd party to repeat the link you made (akin to the first sale doctrine).

seibelj 6y ago

I think the Harper's letter[0] being viciously attacked on the left is what's hilarious. There are no conservatives remaining in the left media, so they have to find new enemies among each other. This is textbook witch hunt / McCarthyism stuff. I just keep eating popcorn and watching it unfold! [0] https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/ https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/

TeaDrunk 6y ago
I don't understand why it's necessary to bring this up or its relation at all with SSC or the New Yorker piece.
- throwawaysea 6y ago
  I am speculating on behalf of GP, but I think the reason it might be relevant is because the New Yorker has a far-left bias (https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart) and the motivation to go after SSC in the first place (for some on the left) seems to be that SSC's author and comments on SSC were willing to hold objective conversations about race and other touchy matters that the far left often dismisses as off limits (for instance using the label of "scientific racism"). This Harper's letter is in support of open debate, free inquiry, and free thought, and therefore it is in effect in support of SSC. Free thought and free inquiry and the freedom to research/discuss/publish unpopular ideas has been a hot topic in recent times. For instance, see the protest of Omar Wasow's paper on protesting (https://www.chronicle.com/article/The-Protesting-of-a-Protest/249129 https://www.chronicle.com/article/The-Protesting-of-a-Protes...) or the firing of Steven Hsu (https://quillette.com/2020/07/01/on-steve-hsu-and-the-campaign-to-thwart-free-inquiry/ https://quillette.com/2020/07/01/on-steve-hsu-and-the-campai...).

NicolasGorden 6y ago

I feel motive is important. Was there backlash because the NYT published an opinion some disagree with? Or was PPI going to be exposed that hurt a medical professional maintain his practice? I think one carries a very real reason for backlash. The other, not so much. Also, what was being requested? Did Scott make this personal and ask for someone to get fired? If he did, equating this with actions like that makes sense. If not, it makes no sense. Last, your use of the word tantrum for an adult making rational decisions related to the well being of himself and his patients only highlights your own emotive state.

mrkurt 6y ago
Personal information that Scott Alexander _already published_ was going to be republished. He's published all his own personal info repeatedly for years. Deleting a site you've posted on thousands of times is a quality tantrum.
- NicolasGorden 6y ago
  You can consider it an over-reaction. But calling it a tantrum, using that specific word, really highlights your flared emotions. When people resort to value laden language instead of more objective, reasonable language, it says a lot about their mindset. On the actual subject, scale and magnitude are issues that most rational beings consider. His avoiding people knowing his name on scale makes sense. Our society in general has even codified this difference in law by separating 'public figures' from 'private individuals'. It seems disingenuous to ignore this concern or equate using your name online with having it published on one of the most read publications in the world.
  - mrkurt 6y ago
    I like emotion, thanks. The church of rationality is not my bag.
    - NicolasGorden 6y ago
      I thank you for your honesty. At least your being open about your position. Too many times people argue against rationality in disguise, acting like they like it but secretly hating it.

chippy 6y ago

In the US currently it appears that "cancel" equates to "criticize". There's no nuance possible, seems to me, so why bother? It's no wonder so many people are not playing the game. Equally so it's telling that "silence equals consent" is the reaction to people checking out of the game - the invested players and GMs really don't like people not playing along.