4 ms·

It just seems like a lot of conclusions to draw around an article that hasn't been released yet and which no one has read. Plus, what if the New Yorker article

It just seems like a lot of conclusions to draw around an article that hasn't been released yet and which no one has read. Plus, what if the New Yorker article got something wrong (not necessarily thru negligence)? Or what if the NY Times article changes between now and its publication (if it's published)? What if Alexander misunderstood something? Or, what if there are circumstances which people have not chosen to publicly share for whatever reason? I appreciate you writing back. At the end of the day, it just seems like this whole topic struck an emotional chord with a lot of people for reasons I don't understand, or, don't agree with. To be fair, I've definitely felt an emotional response. There's a lot of fear going around in the world right now, and understandably so.

tripletao 6y ago
I also appreciate the response, and I certainly agree that no one except the NYT reporter knew what would be published (and not even they knew what the ultimate consequences would be for Alexander). But since the only way for Alexander to know for sure would have been for him to wait and see if he gets fired, I can't blame him for acting speculatively. Maybe people respond in proportion to their self-assessed risk that they themselves would end up in Alexander's predicament? That probably explains some of the left/right split on this and similar topics. I just can't help thinking that those with views broadly similar to an average NYT reporter's are underestimating that personal risk, given that: (a) the boundaries of acceptable thought may change quickly and unpredictably; and (b) a much greater fraction of their personal and professional network is likely to come along with the mob, increasing the risk that public censure has consequences to their daily life. "Cancel culture" poses much less risk to a Breitbart reporter (who's already beyond the pale) than to a broadly liberal writer who misses or disregards the latest change in that boundary.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- adamsea 6y ago
  FWIW I think you’re making a lot of assumptions.

tripletao 6y ago

I also appreciate the response, and I certainly agree that no one except the NYT reporter knew what would be published (and not even they knew what the ultimate consequences would be for Alexander). But since the only way for Alexander to know for sure would have been for him to wait and see if he gets fired, I can't blame him for acting speculatively. Maybe people respond in proportion to their self-assessed risk that they themselves would end up in Alexander's predicament? That probably explains some of the left/right split on this and similar topics. I just can't help thinking that those with views broadly similar to an average NYT reporter's are underestimating that personal risk, given that: (a) the boundaries of acceptable thought may change quickly and unpredictably; and (b) a much greater fraction of their personal and professional network is likely to come along with the mob, increasing the risk that public censure has consequences to their daily life. "Cancel culture" poses much less risk to a Breitbart reporter (who's already beyond the pale) than to a broadly liberal writer who misses or disregards the latest change in that boundary.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
adamsea 6y ago
FWIW I think you’re making a lot of assumptions.