5 ms·
There are only two rational explanations here: 1) Scott Alexander wanted more attention, and he realized that deleting his site and blaming the NYT for it woul
by amznthrwaway 6y ago
There are only two rational explanations here:
1) Scott Alexander wanted more attention, and he realized that deleting his site and blaming the NYT for it would garner dramatically more attention, creating opportunities that he wanted. He recognized that he could become a martyr to a certain group, and use that for future gains.
2) Scott Alexander is an absolute moron who did not foresee the Streisand Effect that he was going to cause.
I personally do not think he is a moron. I think he is a manipulative sociopath who knew that people who agree with him on other matters would line up to create future opportunities for him if he pretended that his hand was forced.
It saddens me that so many "smart" people fall for such transparent nonsense. There was no lapse of judgment. He is just a selfish sociopath. Nothing more.
- dash2 6y agoI'm surprised you don't consider other possibilities, like that he was genuinely concerned about his real name being made known, for the reasons he stated. You don't address these. I'm also surprised that you feel able to diagnose someone you presumably don't know as a sociopath. This seem like hyperbole. Honestly, I don't think this post is up to YC standards.
- cfcosta 6y agoWhat's your definition of smart? Left wing?
- reedwolf 6y agoNot who you're replying to, but pretty much.
- zozbot234 6y agoScott is extremely popular in the rationalist community (second only to EY and possibly RH), and has a sizeable following outside of it. He doesn't need to "pretend[] that his hand was forced" to get any sort of "future opportunities" he might want; he just needs to ask. This whole kerfuffle doesn't exactly help him, even from that POV.
- Just_a_simple_q 6y agoWho are EY and RH?
- zozbot234 6y agoThey're prominent members of the rationality community, who also happen to be mentioned in the article in connection with the same.
- SilasX 6y agoI think they were asking for someone to expand the abbreviations and save others from having to dig for all the EY/RH people mentioned. EY = Eliezer Yudkowsky, I don't immediately recognize an RH. Edit: Ah, Robin Hanson, I guess?
- wskinner 6y agoEliezer Yudkowsky and Robin Hanson.
- cwp 6y agoFunny you should use the word "rational" here.
- memexy 6y agoWhat's funny about his use of the word?
- lyssa17 6y agohey, are you on reddit memexy? i'm /u/foobanana, ping me if you are. admire your attempts at reasoning with the unreasonable here.
- memexy 6y agoThanks for the kind words. I stopped using reddit some time ago but good to know there are still good people there like you working to uphold standards. I am on keybase and I'm always happy to chat with fellow reasoners: keybase.io/memexy. I dislike getting swept up in groups and that's what happened to me on reddit and other social media sites so now I make sure to deliberately talk with individuals without worrying about performing in front of a group.
- memexy 6y agoI agree with you. His actions paint a very dark picture and I also don't understand why people are defending him. It's like you said, he's either smart enough to know what he's doing, in which case his actions should be scrutinized as such, or he has no clue what he's doing and he should be called a "moron" and left to his own devices. It can't be both at the same time. He can't be a moron and a genius that was forced to do something he didn't want to do.
- dpbriggs 6y agoHe's had mental breakdowns over harassment tangential to the site's function (culture war debates). His relative degree of anonymity and obscurity shields him from the worst of the internet. He may write rationalist essays but he's human. I understand that you're celebrating his loss, but that's just not a charitable read. He provided one the last bastions of nuance on the internet.
- amznthrwaway 6y agoI'm not celebrating his loss. I don't even think that he lost. I think it's most likely that he made a calculated win, and that easily manipulated people such as yourself are getting played. It's telling, though, that you presume I'm celebrating. Your victim mentality shines strong. As does your eagerness to vilify those who perceive a situation differently than you. It's almost as though you're not even the tiniest bit rational. That you're more of a cult member than anything else.