3 ms·

> I would have said, "I am archiving the blog until further notice because I need to think about what kind of content should be made publicly available because

by waon 6y ago

> I would have said, "I am archiving the blog until further notice because I need to think about what kind of content should be made publicly available because words have power and it's important to think about what information and inferences we make available to others through those words". That's not a way him to raise objections. You're demanding that he shut up. > His suggestion wasn't civil The fact that you keep repeating this doesn't make any of this true. He didn't make any suggestions to harass anyone. > I don't understand how people can look at all this evidence Your "evidence" is unrelated to Scott himself, and it doesn't show any sort of harassment taking place either.

memexy 6y ago
I did not [demand] that anyone do anything. I stated an opinion and backed it up with reasoning about why I believed what I believed. It's silly to jump from what I actually said to what you inferred. > You're demanding that he shut up. I did not demand anything. I gave reasons and arguments about what I thought. He silenced himself by deleting his blog, no one demanded that he do so, he took the action of deleting his blog of his own volition.
- waon 6y ago
  > I did not [demand] that anyone do anything. But you repeatedly criticized him for voicing his objections to being de-anonymized. When asked how he could’ve done so differently, you said that he should’ve wrote about how terrible his blog posts were instead. How is this different from demanding that he shut up? > It's silly to jump from what I actually said to what you inferred. That’s an explanation of what you’ve been doing all along with the whole “making suggestions” nonsense.
  - memexy 6y ago
    Is criticism no longer allowed? Isn't that the foundation of rational debate? I have no opinions on his anonymity. I personally don't care or want to know who he is and wasn't planning on reading the NYT article. I have my own conclusions about SSC and its community that I doubt would be changed by the article and no one here has yet convinced me otherwise or given any compelling evidence to the contrary. I have explained why I used the words that I did. If you have any more points to make then quote me in context and provide an actual rebuttal instead of calling what I wrote "nonsense".

by waon 6y ago

memexy 6y ago

I did not [demand] that anyone do anything. I stated an opinion and backed it up with reasoning about why I believed what I believed. It's silly to jump from what I actually said to what you inferred. > You're demanding that he shut up. I did not demand anything. I gave reasons and arguments about what I thought. He silenced himself by deleting his blog, no one demanded that he do so, he took the action of deleting his blog of his own volition.

waon 6y ago
> I did not [demand] that anyone do anything. But you repeatedly criticized him for voicing his objections to being de-anonymized. When asked how he could’ve done so differently, you said that he should’ve wrote about how terrible his blog posts were instead. How is this different from demanding that he shut up? > It's silly to jump from what I actually said to what you inferred. That’s an explanation of what you’ve been doing all along with the whole “making suggestions” nonsense.
- memexy 6y ago
  Is criticism no longer allowed? Isn't that the foundation of rational debate? I have no opinions on his anonymity. I personally don't care or want to know who he is and wasn't planning on reading the NYT article. I have my own conclusions about SSC and its community that I doubt would be changed by the article and no one here has yet convinced me otherwise or given any compelling evidence to the contrary. I have explained why I used the words that I did. If you have any more points to make then quote me in context and provide an actual rebuttal instead of calling what I wrote "nonsense".