Hard to pigeonhole. Long, sometimes rambling, well written (in my view; opinions vary), generally thoughtful, fairly centrist, often left-of-centre (enough so t

Hard to pigeonhole. Long, sometimes rambling, well written (in my view; opinions vary), generally thoughtful, fairly centrist, often left-of-centre (enough so to deeply annoy certain breeds of conservatives), but with enough libertarian or classical liberal ideas sprinkled through it to deeply annoy a certain type of leftist. Some of his consistent themes are a gentle scepticism about what we think we know, a refusal to attribute malice to those who disagree with him, and a desire to be pragmatic about how we can achieve our shared goals. ...obviously this means there's a vocal faction on social media who believe he is the modern equivalent of a grand wizard of the KKK, and who have said so in exactly so many words repeatedly. If you're the kind of person who'd like Scott's writing, you'll probably like it a lot, and you will reach this conclusion quite quickly. You'll also likely find it inexplicable anyone might disagree. If you're the kind of person who does not like his writing, you'll probably hate it, and probably find it confusing that anyone else might not hate it. For reasons I don't remotely understand, he (and his writing) is oddly polarizing.