3 ms·
> This plea ... in this case, it seemed to lend plausible deniability to what he surely knew would be taken as incitement. That's unfair given that the alterna
by hirundo 6y ago
> This plea ... in this case, it seemed to lend plausible deniability to what he surely knew would be taken as incitement.
That's unfair given that the alternative was supine acceptance. He made a good faith attempt to amplify his reasonable criticism while leashing the inevitable jerks. Can the author of this article say as much?
This is a formula to silence any popular speaker by association. Here's a dangerous person who listens to you, therefore you lose the right to complain in public.
- zozbot234 6y agoI agree with the author that Scott definitely knew what was about to happen. He has consistently tried his best to "leash" his followers, but the response has been quite harsh nonetheless. And the whole SV + conservative politics vs. old media angle has made the situation even more intractable.
- mst 6y agoCalling it "plausible deniability" implies that he condoned any negative results. I don't believe that to be true, and I do believe that if he'd made no comment at all about contacting the NYT, many - if not most - of the people who contacted them in an unconstructive fashion would have done so anyway. I do agree that Scott knew what was about to happen - but I think his attempt to guilt trip his followers into not doing it even though he knew it would probably be futile was genuine.