4 ms·

1. The content of the article is still unknown. Scott — and from what I can tell most of the rest of the SSC chud community — made an assumption about the ill i

1. The content of the article is still unknown. Scott — and from what I can tell most of the rest of the SSC chud community — made an assumption about the ill intent of the author for which there is no evidence. Again the hypocrisy here is delightful given how much of rationalist ideology relies on giving people the benefit of the doubt. 2. Scott's last name is already out there and is ridiculously easy to find. The idea that he was actually anonymous as the author of SSC is silly. 3. There's an implicit admission of guilt in the way Scott anticipates that his clients and the broader public will react negatively to his views. I wonder, what is it about Scott's views that makes him so certain the reaction will be negative? Why hasn't he allowed for the possibility that his clients and the NYT readership will react positively to the article? Couldn't it raise his profile and that of his blog in a way that is beneficial to both? 4. I recognize that this is heresy to rationalist ideology, but his identity matters in a discussion of his ideas, especially his political ideas. It's easier to assess his sincerity or credibility given the background his real identity provides. Is Scott really the Grand Wizard of the KKK in real life? Is he a saint who spends his days serving the homeless? Is he just some guy? 5. If nothing else Scott is making the tactical mistake of adding fuel to the fire. My guess is that not only will the NYT still publish, this entire kerfuffle will almost certainly now be part of the story. Traditional news media thrives on controversy and sensationalism. Scott has just made this whole thing far more interesting and already drawn more attention to himself via the New Yorker article. As of my writing this comment the Google autocomplete for "Scott Alexander" is his last name. His knee-jerk reaction to the unpublished NYT piece has already ensured the loss of anonymity. Seems kind-of irrational.

nkurz 6y ago
Starting with #1, why do you believe that "Scott — and from what I can tell most of the rest of the SSC chud[1] community — made an assumption about the ill intent of the author for which there is no evidence." From what I've seen, everything Scott has written has claimed exactly the opposite. He claimed several times that his expectation was the article would probably be mostly positive. In his explanation for taking down the blog, his words were "It probably would have been a very nice article." In one of the most discussed postmortems, Scott Aaronson explains why he personally vouched for the NYT reporter and encouraged people to cooperate: "I told Scott Alexander and others that I knew Cade, his intentions were good, he was only trying to understand the community, and everyone should help him by talking to him openly." While there were a few opinions on the blog pre-shutdown that suspected it would be a negative article, these were generally people who had poor earlier experiences with reporters in general, and weren't specific to this case. Countering them were multiple reports from interviewed posters saying that the reporter seemed genuine and well intentioned. But somehow you've reached the exact opposite impression: that led by Scott, practically everyone assumed ill intent. Since it's easier to define the opinion of an individual than a group, let's concentrate on just Scott. Could you explain how Scott demonstrated his belief that the reporter had ill intent? Has he written anything that would back this interpretation, or is it based on the assumption he actually believes the opposite of everything that he has said in public? Conversely, what would he have said differently if in fact he didn't assume ill intent? [1] Chud as in Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dweller? Or is this a typo I haven't been able to decipher?

nkurz 6y ago

Starting with #1, why do you believe that "Scott — and from what I can tell most of the rest of the SSC chud[1] community — made an assumption about the ill intent of the author for which there is no evidence." From what I've seen, everything Scott has written has claimed exactly the opposite. He claimed several times that his expectation was the article would probably be mostly positive. In his explanation for taking down the blog, his words were "It probably would have been a very nice article." In one of the most discussed postmortems, Scott Aaronson explains why he personally vouched for the NYT reporter and encouraged people to cooperate: "I told Scott Alexander and others that I knew Cade, his intentions were good, he was only trying to understand the community, and everyone should help him by talking to him openly." While there were a few opinions on the blog pre-shutdown that suspected it would be a negative article, these were generally people who had poor earlier experiences with reporters in general, and weren't specific to this case. Countering them were multiple reports from interviewed posters saying that the reporter seemed genuine and well intentioned. But somehow you've reached the exact opposite impression: that led by Scott, practically everyone assumed ill intent. Since it's easier to define the opinion of an individual than a group, let's concentrate on just Scott. Could you explain how Scott demonstrated his belief that the reporter had ill intent? Has he written anything that would back this interpretation, or is it based on the assumption he actually believes the opposite of everything that he has said in public? Conversely, what would he have said differently if in fact he didn't assume ill intent? [1] Chud as in Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dweller? Or is this a typo I haven't been able to decipher?