27 ms·

Given the rather enormous of time and attention spent on it, not to mention the vast amounts of heated debate it had already spawned, I'd sort of assumed the NY

by Lazare 6y ago

Given the rather enormous of time and attention spent on it, not to mention the vast amounts of heated debate it had already spawned, I'd sort of assumed the NYT would either publish a really, really solid article or (more likely) just spike it and try and forget the entire thing had ever happened. After all, given that the NYT was now so much a part of the story, writing anything good would be pretty hard. But no, kudos to them, they found a third way: Just write a poorly written article that alternates between interjecting disconnected ideas and making vague attempts at guilt by association, and carefully ignore anything inconvenient. > He denounced the neoreactionaries, the anti-democratic, often racist movement popularized by Curtis Yarvin. But he also gave them a platform. His “blog roll” — the blogs he endorsed — included the work of Nick Land, a British philosopher whose writings on race, genetics and intelligence have been embraced by white nationalists. So he denounced the works of one person who believes bad things, but he also linked to a second person, who may or may not believe bad things, but is liked by a third group of people who also believe bad things, so...logically...that must mean he actually does...support the first person? Despite denouncing them, because he didn't link to them, which proves...something...? It feels weird even writing this argument down. If you link to someone who supports X, then you're actually supporting every other person who has ever supported X? Link to a pro-vegan website, you must support every terrible ideology that has had at least one vegetarian supporter? What a depressing waste of everyone's time.

prezjordan 6y ago
I had absolutely no problem reading this as SSC denouncing Yarvin, but platforming other prominent members of the neoreactionary movement.
- Lazare 6y ago
  Yes, I had no problem reading the reporter's words that way either, which is the exact thing I'm complaining about. :) Bluntly: Which prominent member of the neoreactionary movement was allowed to guest blog at SSC? Because if the answer is "none", then I think it's clear he did not do any such thing.
  - prezjordan 6y ago
    Platforming doesn’t mean guest blogging though, but I think you know already that
    - MikeUt 6y ago
      So how did he platform them? All the article offers is that he linked to the blog of a person that neoreactionaries also like. If that person has said or done anything controversial, the Times should say so. Instead, they just try to tar by the fact that bad people like him (something he has no control over). Note how far removed this is from Scott Alexander himself.
      - comex 6y ago
        It doesn't say he linked to the blog of a person that neoreactionaries also like. What the wording implies is that he linked to the blog of a person who is himself a neoreactionary and whom white supremacists also like. At least based on Wikipedia's narrative [1], it seems like Nick Land is in fact associated with the neoreactionary movement. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Enlightenment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Enlightenment
        trenchgun 6y ago
        Indeed. It is true that Scott linked to Nick Land (and also Charles Murray but that is a different discussion) in his blogroll.
        trenchgun 6y ago
        Then there is the another argument about allowing to use the blog comment section for promotion of neoreactionary ideas. Which is kind of core to Scott's "Grey Tribe" ideas about free speech, but is very much against the "Blue Tribe" ideas of "no platforming nazis" etc.
- notsureaboutpg 6y ago
  >platforming other prominent members of the neoreactionary movement. Can't wait till we move past this infantile reframing of "showing people something you read" as "platforming". We used to read the works of our enemies to understand them and read the works of kooks and crazies to avoid following their path (but also to see what truths, when followed too zealously, lead to ruin). Now we have to read things, figure out the social credit of the things we read, and then decide whether or not to tell anyone we actually read it and thought about it.
FlownScepter 6y ago
> So he denounced the works of one person who believes bad things, but he also linked to a second person, who may or may not believe bad things, but is liked by a third group of people who also believe bad things, so...logically...that must mean he actually does...support the first person? Despite denouncing them, because he didn't link to them, which proves...something...? I will never understand the pearl clutching that goes on when things like this happen. As a person you are judged constantly by others, as a public figure this increases exponentially. You are judged on everything: the clothing you wear, the way you speak, and yes, the company you keep. In the age of social media influencing, each of us has a platform built upon the platform we choose. Each of us via that platform can spread influence, be it marketing, ideas, or (dis)information. If you utilize your platform upon a platform (or just your platform) to spread bad ideas, purported by bad people, it is a perfectly rational reaction by your audience to reclaim the social capital they have given you. This is not wrong. This is not censorship. This is how social networks have worked since long before any of us had a smart phone, or indeed, when the social network was a fire in a cave, we have operated this way. And reading this summation, yeah that sounds about right. It sounds as if he is embroiled in a social space that is spreading bad ideas. He has denounced one person who was in that social space, but he is still in contact with two others spreading similar ideas. This calls into question the sincerity of his denouncement. I.e. if you say you're done drinking, and resolve to quit, and refuse to spend time with your alcoholic friend, but still spend time around two others who drink regularly, people would be right to question your sincerity in that resolve. > If you link to someone who supports X, then you're actually supporting every other person who has ever supported X? Link to a pro-vegan website, you must support every terrible ideology that has had at least one vegetarian supporter? This impulse to boil this activity into a set of always absurd sounding "rules" is probably comforting to those who would call themselves Rationalist, the sorts who fetishize facts and logic, while usually having a dearth of both in the things they say. But ultimately this isn't hard to understand: If you associate with people known to believe and spread bad things, you will in turn be viewed as possibly endorsing those things. And all of this comes up against the simple and obvious truth that all someone in this position has to do is speak what so many would like to hear; that they didn't understand what this person was doing, that it isn't what they believe, and to create distance. But they won't. I wonder why?
setgree 6y ago
I laughed when I got to this: > “It is the one place I know of online where you can have civil conversations among people with a wide range of views,” said David Friedman, an economist and legal scholar who was a regular part of the discussion. Fellow commenters on the site, he noted, represented a wide cross-section of viewpoints. Yes, David just said that, thanks for the repetition. Where were the editors on this? I conjecture that they just felt like they had to publish something after all this time and they went with what they had. It’s also strange that it doesn’t link to the NYT magazine article on rationalist retreats from a few years ago, nor the New Yorker article about this dispute, nor the New Yorker article about HN, all of which fill in the picture.
- bmmayer1 6y ago
  > Where were the editors on this? Maybe the good editors at the NYT are too busy getting fired.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - arminiusreturns 6y ago
    For those of you unaware, let me summarize what this is referencing. Recently a NYT freelance editor Lauren Wolfe, who mostly worked on the "live updates" team, was fired, but this firing caused some controversy due to the timing of some tweets and who knows what else. It's not completley clear why she was fired, as the NYT responded to requests for comment by the WaPo by saying [1]: "There’s a lot of inaccurate information circulating on Twitter. For privacy reasons we don’t get into the details of personnel matters but we can say that we didn’t end someone’s employment over a single tweet. Out of respect for the individuals involved we don’t plan to comment further. (To clarify something that has been incorrectly reported, Ms. Wolfe was not a full-time employee, nor did she have a contract.)" Quite a few leftists initially blamed the NYT for caving to conservative pressure, apparently by making the claim there was a relation between the tweets she made and her firing, which she confirmed in another WaPo interview [3] by saying "...that an editor at the paper contacted her after she published the “chills” tweet. The Times couldn’t be associated with such a tweet, said the manager, and that her gig with the paper would be ending." Some leftists also seemed to blame Glenn Greenwald for his involvement in the matter; a single tweet in response to hers that he later called "light mockery"[2]. Glenn Greenwald, previously strongly supported by the left and many others, has recently been victim to a series of character assassination attempts due to his unconformity to the mainstream leftists viewpoints, so it rather seems the twitter left mob just used him as a lightening rod without having all the facts in this case. The tweets in question? LW: "The pettiness of the Trump admin not sending a military plane to bring him to D.C. as is tradition is mortifying. Childish She later deleted the above tweet when it was revealed that Biden and his team chose to take his own plane, despite many mainstream media talking heads parroting the same narrative. LW: “Biden landing at Joint Base Andrews now. I have chills” GG: "If you're in the national press and will be on TV at any point today and being to feel the need to weep joyously, just hold it in until you find a private place. Nobody is expecting any adversarial coverage over the next 4 years, but it's just a matter of personal dignity." 1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2021/01/24/lauren-wolfe-new-york-times-biden-tweet/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2021/01/24/lauren-wolfe... 2. https://youtu.be/uL-e6XfWppo?t=293 https://youtu.be/uL-e6XfWppo?t=293 3. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/25/lauren-wolfe-tweet-nyt-dismissal/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/25/lauren-wo...
gotoeleven 6y ago
NY Times? They just do rage-porn now. They don't have the critical thinking skills for anything else.
bedhead 6y ago
NYT is basically now QAnon
supercanuck 6y ago
I think the NYT article is basically saying, Birds of a feather... ?? Grouping of people by other people will forever be a "thing"
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
mushufasa 6y ago
The best thing to do is for everyone to ignore this article and don't let it get traction via Streisand. It's clearly not written in good faith. The reporter had to be biased against siskind after the saga and conflict they went through. The second best thing is, should any reporters be reading this, to take the opportunity to write a better article.
- devlopr 6y ago
  The best is to remember this reporter and newspaper and trust them less.
  - whoooooo123 6y ago
    Really, why does anyone take the NYT seriously anymore? It seems that barely a week goes by these days without some new way in which they discredit themselves. If you were a conservative "anti-woke" mole who'd infiltrated the NYT and wanted to publish fake content in a deliberate attempt to destroy the organisation's credibility you couldn't have done much better than the self-inflicted wounds the NYT has been pouring out again and again and again lately.
    - prepend 6y ago
      > why does anyone take the NYT seriously anymore Does anyone? I’m not sure credible people do and no one I respect has referenced a Times article for other than crossword, Sunday magazine, fluff stuff.
  - matheusmoreira 6y ago
    An even better approach would be to distrust all reporters and newspapers and remember the exceptional good ones.
- notSupplied 6y ago
  Actually, this article may be creating a streisand effect for Codex.
mistersquid 6y ago
The article is plainly written and well written and allows people to decide for themselves what the intentions of Scott Siskind may be. Contra to the insinuation that Cade Metz smears Siskind by unfairly associating him with Nick Land, Metz's article lays the evidence and allows readers to infer what that evidence may or may not mean. For me, the concluding 3 paragraphs of the article sum up what Slate Star Codex (now "Astral Codex Ten") may be > I assured [Kelsey Piper] my goal was to report on the blog, and the Rationalists, with rigor and fairness. But she felt that discussing both critics and supporters could be unfair. What I needed to do, she said, was somehow prove statistically which side was right. This is ad absurdum at its finest. Proving whether an idea is correct using statistical analysis makes sense for many empirical matters. But proving whether proponents of extreme views (e.g. in the article, the idea that women are biologically not as capable as men to work as programmers) by using statistical analysis is a moral failure driven by scientificism. (I'm going to decline rehearsing the debates about whether women are biologically or culturally inhibited from programming.) > When I asked Mr. Altman, of OpenAI, if the conversation on sites like Slate Star Codex could push people toward toxic beliefs, he said he held “some empathy” for these concerns. But, he added, “people need a forum to debate ideas.” This really sounds unfortunately like John Matze's position on Parler. Slate Star Codex is not the same kind of gathering ground Parler was, but given the next paragraph, the comparison is not inapt. > In August, Mr. Siskind restored his old blog posts to the internet. And two weeks ago, he relaunched his blog on Substack, a company with ties to both Andreessen Horowitz and Y Combinator. He gave the blog a new title: Astral Codex Ten. He hinted that Substack paid him $250,000 for a year on the platform. And he indicated the company would give him all the protection he needed. If Slate Star Codex is somewhere self-described "Rationalists" can civilly and safely debate whether intelligence is statistically correlated to race and gender and these are "[t]he People Inventing the Future", then it's not surprising Horowitz would seek to protect that forum under the shelter of Substack. However, it's slightly alarming to hear that Altman defends the promulgation of such ideas because "people need a forum to debate ideas". Too many of these ideas seep into the discussions even here on Hacker News. Failing to object to immorality and immoral arguments cannot be corrected only by rationalism and statistics because Nature, at its core, is amoral. Many dumb people are moral. Many dumb people are immoral. By the same token many smart people are immoral, too. The real problem is when you realize that many smart people are, in fact, both immoral and dumb. The article's last paragraph gives the lie to the controversy that has raged in tech circles surrounding publishing Siskind's name. > In his first post [on Astral Codex Ten], Mr. Siskind shared his full name.
dmatech 6y ago
Indeed. The way society regulates behaviors these days is to pressure people to cut ties with someone labeled "bad" or be labeled "bad" along with that person (and jeopardize your own ties). You might be forced to denounce a good friend or your own spouse in order to keep a job. I hope that when the mob comes for me or someone I care about, I'll be brave enough to tell them exactly what to do with their pitchforks.
- mcphage 6y ago
  > The way society regulates behaviors these days is to pressure people to cut ties with someone labeled "bad" or be labeled "bad" along with that person (and jeopardize your own ties). Ah, that explains all of the people in the comments here criticizing the author of this piece.
comex 6y ago
> > He denounced the neoreactionaries, the anti-democratic, often racist movement popularized by Curtis Yarvin. But he also gave them a platform. His “blog roll” — the blogs he endorsed — included the work of Nick Land, a British philosopher whose writings on race, genetics and intelligence have been embraced by white nationalists. > So he denounced the works of one person who believes bad things, but he also linked to a second person, who may or may not believe bad things, but is liked by a third group of people who also believe bad things, so...logically...that must mean he actually does...support the first person? Despite denouncing them, because he didn't link to them, which proves...something…? Nowhere in the paragraph you quoted does it allege Scott supported Curtis Yarvin personally. What it implies is that Nick Land is one of the "neoreactionaries", which, according to Wikipedia [1], he is. The "embraced by white nationalists" part is a bit more tricky. It does imply that Land's writings are bad because white nationalists like them (more than others do). In the abstract, of course, this is not necessarily true. Perhaps it's just a coincidence that white nationalists like him, or he's just a symbol; one can like country music without liking conservatism. (But it's unlikely he's merely a symbol when he literally writes about race.) Perhaps his writings are relevant but they're misinterpreting him; Social Darwinism does not implicate Darwin. But a third possibility is that his writings are just racist – though perhaps cloaked, perhaps the motte in the metaphorical motte and bailey – and as such provide an intellectual foundation for white supremacy. Personally, I'm not sure what the answer is, because I don't know much about these people. But my priors point to the third option as most likely, given how intellectual movements tend to be organized. Which means that the fact of his being embraced by white nationalists was informative, which means it was appropriate for the reporter to include it. Sure, if the reporter is omitting some critical evidence or context that would lead to an opposite conclusion, that would be unethical. But the reporter is not obliged to include every argument that could possibly be made in his defense, either. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Enlightenment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Enlightenment
- MikeUt 6y ago
  > Personally, I'm not sure what the answer is, because I don't know much about these people. If only a world-famous newspaper could look into this and find out, so that you would not have to guess.
josh_fyi 6y ago
SlateStarCodex had the antineoreactionary FAQ, the best such writing around.
- zozbot234 6y ago
  Also, "Reactionary Philosophy in an Enormous, Planet-Sized Nutshell" for a look at the "pro" side. It turns out that giving neoreaction a "platform" is not at all incompatible with also offering a rather robust critique of it, that many people might even see as "denouncing" the ideology and its proponents. (But clearly, this level of intellectual subtlety is rather beyond the understanding of NYTimes journalists or editors!)
ryandrake 6y ago
> Just write a poorly written article that alternates between interjecting disconnected ideas and making vague attempts at guilt by association The whole guilt-by-association thing that's going on these days is one of the most worrying cancelation techniques, because it can be done even through a very remote link. I like person A, who likes person B, who likes person C, who happens to also be liked by White Supremacists. therefore I am a White Supremacist (and person A, B, and C, too). How many degrees of separation do you need in order to be safe from the mob?
- gedy 6y ago
  Not only that, it's also if you don't vocally condemn along with others (no matter the reason) you are also suspect. You support "the status quo" even if you try to stay away from mob behavior, etc.
  - ryandrake 6y ago
    That's part of the necessary practice of being "conspicuously upset"[1] about things, that SSC points out. It's not enough that I am upset by White Supremacists (I am). I must conspicuously post over and over how upset I am about things, lest someone confuses a brief period of silence with acceptance of something awful. 1: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anythin...
    - jakelazaroff 6y ago
      Okay, but it’s not like people expect Scott to denounce these things apropos of nothing. He publicly discusses them. It’s fine to have a nuanced take — but if you leave room for interpretation, don’t be surprised when people side-eye you for not taking a clear stance.
      - julianapostate 6y ago
        Ironically, there was a recent astral codex article about how much writings sucks and becomes useless when you have to appeal to too many stakeholders by constantly re-stating the obvious to keep everyone happy.
mtae 6y ago
The slightest bit of research before commenting would reveal that Nick Land is a prominent neo-reactionary with awful views on race and genetics. He’s not embraced by white nationalists for the cyberpunk aesthetic.
- mst 6y ago
  And then a slight bit more research would demonstrate that he wrote some fascinating left-leaning stuff before he jumped off that particular cliff, and that that's the stuff Scott thought was interesting.
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > And then a slight bit more research would demonstrate that he wrote some fascinating left-leaning stuff before he jumped off that particular cliff, and that that's the stuff Scott thought was interesting. And then, after a little more thought, you'd realize SSC's blog roll entry would direct the reader to the more recent neoreactionary stuff, not the "fascinating left-leaning stuff." It's definitely a bad look to have present-day Nick Land on your blogroll. If you think some of his older stuff was interesting, it's a better idea to link to that directly rather than his home page.
    - Aapje58 6y ago
      He doesn't have present-day Nick Land on the blog roll for his new blog, though.
AnimalMuppet 6y ago
But this "guilty by association" has been going on just about forever. Even Jesus was socially condemned for being a friend of tax-collectors and sinners.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- pfortuny 6y ago
  Well, yes, by the hypocrites.
jariel 6y ago
Yes, and this is the 'Grey Lady' - bastion of credibility and objectivity.
dataduck 6y ago
It's not surprising from Cade Metz - he has a long track record of being deeply unethical. https://medium.com/@garyweiss_86200/cade-metz-pulls-a-deep-capture-on-slate-star-codex-da649e8efe7 https://medium.com/@garyweiss_86200/cade-metz-pulls-a-deep-c...
konjin 6y ago
>What a depressing waste of everyone's time. That is an extremely accurate summary of American politics over the last 5 years.
rayiner 6y ago
> So he denounced the works of one person who believes bad things, but he also linked to a second person, who may or may not believe bad things, but is liked by a third group of people who also believe bad things, so...logically...that must mean he actually does...support the first person? Despite denouncing them, because he didn't link to them, which proves...something...? The NYT is apparently run by Glenn Beck now. Dude, just connect the dots. It all fits.
m463 6y ago
and lots of labeling. I always like to remember that poorly argued points are a click goldmine.
sobani 6y ago
> Link to a pro-vegan website, you must support every terrible ideology that has had at least one vegetarian supporter? We're all adults here, you can say "Hitler". So, unless you completely denounce vegetarianism, you are literally supporting Nazis. (For people who don't get it, Hitler was a vegetarian.)

by Lazare 6y ago

prezjordan 6y ago

I had absolutely no problem reading this as SSC denouncing Yarvin, but platforming other prominent members of the neoreactionary movement.

Lazare 6y ago
Yes, I had no problem reading the reporter's words that way either, which is the exact thing I'm complaining about. :) Bluntly: Which prominent member of the neoreactionary movement was allowed to guest blog at SSC? Because if the answer is "none", then I think it's clear he did not do any such thing.
- prezjordan 6y ago
  Platforming doesn’t mean guest blogging though, but I think you know already that
  - MikeUt 6y ago
    So how did he platform them? All the article offers is that he linked to the blog of a person that neoreactionaries also like. If that person has said or done anything controversial, the Times should say so. Instead, they just try to tar by the fact that bad people like him (something he has no control over). Note how far removed this is from Scott Alexander himself.
    - comex 6y ago
      It doesn't say he linked to the blog of a person that neoreactionaries also like. What the wording implies is that he linked to the blog of a person who is himself a neoreactionary and whom white supremacists also like. At least based on Wikipedia's narrative [1], it seems like Nick Land is in fact associated with the neoreactionary movement. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Enlightenment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Enlightenment
      - trenchgun 6y ago
        Indeed. It is true that Scott linked to Nick Land (and also Charles Murray but that is a different discussion) in his blogroll.
      - trenchgun 6y ago
        Then there is the another argument about allowing to use the blog comment section for promotion of neoreactionary ideas. Which is kind of core to Scott's "Grey Tribe" ideas about free speech, but is very much against the "Blue Tribe" ideas of "no platforming nazis" etc.
notsureaboutpg 6y ago
>platforming other prominent members of the neoreactionary movement. Can't wait till we move past this infantile reframing of "showing people something you read" as "platforming". We used to read the works of our enemies to understand them and read the works of kooks and crazies to avoid following their path (but also to see what truths, when followed too zealously, lead to ruin). Now we have to read things, figure out the social credit of the things we read, and then decide whether or not to tell anyone we actually read it and thought about it.

FlownScepter 6y ago

> So he denounced the works of one person who believes bad things, but he also linked to a second person, who may or may not believe bad things, but is liked by a third group of people who also believe bad things, so...logically...that must mean he actually does...support the first person? Despite denouncing them, because he didn't link to them, which proves...something...? I will never understand the pearl clutching that goes on when things like this happen. As a person you are judged constantly by others, as a public figure this increases exponentially. You are judged on everything: the clothing you wear, the way you speak, and yes, the company you keep. In the age of social media influencing, each of us has a platform built upon the platform we choose. Each of us via that platform can spread influence, be it marketing, ideas, or (dis)information. If you utilize your platform upon a platform (or just your platform) to spread bad ideas, purported by bad people, it is a perfectly rational reaction by your audience to reclaim the social capital they have given you. This is not wrong. This is not censorship. This is how social networks have worked since long before any of us had a smart phone, or indeed, when the social network was a fire in a cave, we have operated this way. And reading this summation, yeah that sounds about right. It sounds as if he is embroiled in a social space that is spreading bad ideas. He has denounced one person who was in that social space, but he is still in contact with two others spreading similar ideas. This calls into question the sincerity of his denouncement. I.e. if you say you're done drinking, and resolve to quit, and refuse to spend time with your alcoholic friend, but still spend time around two others who drink regularly, people would be right to question your sincerity in that resolve. > If you link to someone who supports X, then you're actually supporting every other person who has ever supported X? Link to a pro-vegan website, you must support every terrible ideology that has had at least one vegetarian supporter? This impulse to boil this activity into a set of always absurd sounding "rules" is probably comforting to those who would call themselves Rationalist, the sorts who fetishize facts and logic, while usually having a dearth of both in the things they say. But ultimately this isn't hard to understand: If you associate with people known to believe and spread bad things, you will in turn be viewed as possibly endorsing those things. And all of this comes up against the simple and obvious truth that all someone in this position has to do is speak what so many would like to hear; that they didn't understand what this person was doing, that it isn't what they believe, and to create distance. But they won't. I wonder why?

setgree 6y ago

I laughed when I got to this: > “It is the one place I know of online where you can have civil conversations among people with a wide range of views,” said David Friedman, an economist and legal scholar who was a regular part of the discussion. Fellow commenters on the site, he noted, represented a wide cross-section of viewpoints. Yes, David just said that, thanks for the repetition. Where were the editors on this? I conjecture that they just felt like they had to publish something after all this time and they went with what they had. It’s also strange that it doesn’t link to the NYT magazine article on rationalist retreats from a few years ago, nor the New Yorker article about this dispute, nor the New Yorker article about HN, all of which fill in the picture.

bmmayer1 6y ago
> Where were the editors on this? Maybe the good editors at the NYT are too busy getting fired.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- arminiusreturns 6y ago
  For those of you unaware, let me summarize what this is referencing. Recently a NYT freelance editor Lauren Wolfe, who mostly worked on the "live updates" team, was fired, but this firing caused some controversy due to the timing of some tweets and who knows what else. It's not completley clear why she was fired, as the NYT responded to requests for comment by the WaPo by saying [1]: "There’s a lot of inaccurate information circulating on Twitter. For privacy reasons we don’t get into the details of personnel matters but we can say that we didn’t end someone’s employment over a single tweet. Out of respect for the individuals involved we don’t plan to comment further. (To clarify something that has been incorrectly reported, Ms. Wolfe was not a full-time employee, nor did she have a contract.)" Quite a few leftists initially blamed the NYT for caving to conservative pressure, apparently by making the claim there was a relation between the tweets she made and her firing, which she confirmed in another WaPo interview [3] by saying "...that an editor at the paper contacted her after she published the “chills” tweet. The Times couldn’t be associated with such a tweet, said the manager, and that her gig with the paper would be ending." Some leftists also seemed to blame Glenn Greenwald for his involvement in the matter; a single tweet in response to hers that he later called "light mockery"[2]. Glenn Greenwald, previously strongly supported by the left and many others, has recently been victim to a series of character assassination attempts due to his unconformity to the mainstream leftists viewpoints, so it rather seems the twitter left mob just used him as a lightening rod without having all the facts in this case. The tweets in question? LW: "The pettiness of the Trump admin not sending a military plane to bring him to D.C. as is tradition is mortifying. Childish She later deleted the above tweet when it was revealed that Biden and his team chose to take his own plane, despite many mainstream media talking heads parroting the same narrative. LW: “Biden landing at Joint Base Andrews now. I have chills” GG: "If you're in the national press and will be on TV at any point today and being to feel the need to weep joyously, just hold it in until you find a private place. Nobody is expecting any adversarial coverage over the next 4 years, but it's just a matter of personal dignity." 1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2021/01/24/lauren-wolfe-new-york-times-biden-tweet/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2021/01/24/lauren-wolfe... 2. https://youtu.be/uL-e6XfWppo?t=293 https://youtu.be/uL-e6XfWppo?t=293 3. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/25/lauren-wolfe-tweet-nyt-dismissal/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/25/lauren-wo...

gotoeleven 6y ago

NY Times? They just do rage-porn now. They don't have the critical thinking skills for anything else.

bedhead 6y ago

NYT is basically now QAnon

supercanuck 6y ago

I think the NYT article is basically saying, Birds of a feather... ?? Grouping of people by other people will forever be a "thing"

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

mushufasa 6y ago

The best thing to do is for everyone to ignore this article and don't let it get traction via Streisand. It's clearly not written in good faith. The reporter had to be biased against siskind after the saga and conflict they went through. The second best thing is, should any reporters be reading this, to take the opportunity to write a better article.

devlopr 6y ago
The best is to remember this reporter and newspaper and trust them less.
- whoooooo123 6y ago
  Really, why does anyone take the NYT seriously anymore? It seems that barely a week goes by these days without some new way in which they discredit themselves. If you were a conservative "anti-woke" mole who'd infiltrated the NYT and wanted to publish fake content in a deliberate attempt to destroy the organisation's credibility you couldn't have done much better than the self-inflicted wounds the NYT has been pouring out again and again and again lately.
  - prepend 6y ago
    > why does anyone take the NYT seriously anymore Does anyone? I’m not sure credible people do and no one I respect has referenced a Times article for other than crossword, Sunday magazine, fluff stuff.
- matheusmoreira 6y ago
  An even better approach would be to distrust all reporters and newspapers and remember the exceptional good ones.
notSupplied 6y ago
Actually, this article may be creating a streisand effect for Codex.

mistersquid 6y ago

The article is plainly written and well written and allows people to decide for themselves what the intentions of Scott Siskind may be. Contra to the insinuation that Cade Metz smears Siskind by unfairly associating him with Nick Land, Metz's article lays the evidence and allows readers to infer what that evidence may or may not mean. For me, the concluding 3 paragraphs of the article sum up what Slate Star Codex (now "Astral Codex Ten") may be > I assured [Kelsey Piper] my goal was to report on the blog, and the Rationalists, with rigor and fairness. But she felt that discussing both critics and supporters could be unfair. What I needed to do, she said, was somehow prove statistically which side was right. This is ad absurdum at its finest. Proving whether an idea is correct using statistical analysis makes sense for many empirical matters. But proving whether proponents of extreme views (e.g. in the article, the idea that women are biologically not as capable as men to work as programmers) by using statistical analysis is a moral failure driven by scientificism. (I'm going to decline rehearsing the debates about whether women are biologically or culturally inhibited from programming.) > When I asked Mr. Altman, of OpenAI, if the conversation on sites like Slate Star Codex could push people toward toxic beliefs, he said he held “some empathy” for these concerns. But, he added, “people need a forum to debate ideas.” This really sounds unfortunately like John Matze's position on Parler. Slate Star Codex is not the same kind of gathering ground Parler was, but given the next paragraph, the comparison is not inapt. > In August, Mr. Siskind restored his old blog posts to the internet. And two weeks ago, he relaunched his blog on Substack, a company with ties to both Andreessen Horowitz and Y Combinator. He gave the blog a new title: Astral Codex Ten. He hinted that Substack paid him $250,000 for a year on the platform. And he indicated the company would give him all the protection he needed. If Slate Star Codex is somewhere self-described "Rationalists" can civilly and safely debate whether intelligence is statistically correlated to race and gender and these are "[t]he People Inventing the Future", then it's not surprising Horowitz would seek to protect that forum under the shelter of Substack. However, it's slightly alarming to hear that Altman defends the promulgation of such ideas because "people need a forum to debate ideas". Too many of these ideas seep into the discussions even here on Hacker News. Failing to object to immorality and immoral arguments cannot be corrected only by rationalism and statistics because Nature, at its core, is amoral. Many dumb people are moral. Many dumb people are immoral. By the same token many smart people are immoral, too. The real problem is when you realize that many smart people are, in fact, both immoral and dumb. The article's last paragraph gives the lie to the controversy that has raged in tech circles surrounding publishing Siskind's name. > In his first post [on Astral Codex Ten], Mr. Siskind shared his full name.

dmatech 6y ago

Indeed. The way society regulates behaviors these days is to pressure people to cut ties with someone labeled "bad" or be labeled "bad" along with that person (and jeopardize your own ties). You might be forced to denounce a good friend or your own spouse in order to keep a job. I hope that when the mob comes for me or someone I care about, I'll be brave enough to tell them exactly what to do with their pitchforks.

mcphage 6y ago
> The way society regulates behaviors these days is to pressure people to cut ties with someone labeled "bad" or be labeled "bad" along with that person (and jeopardize your own ties). Ah, that explains all of the people in the comments here criticizing the author of this piece.

comex 6y ago

> > He denounced the neoreactionaries, the anti-democratic, often racist movement popularized by Curtis Yarvin. But he also gave them a platform. His “blog roll” — the blogs he endorsed — included the work of Nick Land, a British philosopher whose writings on race, genetics and intelligence have been embraced by white nationalists. > So he denounced the works of one person who believes bad things, but he also linked to a second person, who may or may not believe bad things, but is liked by a third group of people who also believe bad things, so...logically...that must mean he actually does...support the first person? Despite denouncing them, because he didn't link to them, which proves...something…? Nowhere in the paragraph you quoted does it allege Scott supported Curtis Yarvin personally. What it implies is that Nick Land is one of the "neoreactionaries", which, according to Wikipedia [1], he is. The "embraced by white nationalists" part is a bit more tricky. It does imply that Land's writings are bad because white nationalists like them (more than others do). In the abstract, of course, this is not necessarily true. Perhaps it's just a coincidence that white nationalists like him, or he's just a symbol; one can like country music without liking conservatism. (But it's unlikely he's merely a symbol when he literally writes about race.) Perhaps his writings are relevant but they're misinterpreting him; Social Darwinism does not implicate Darwin. But a third possibility is that his writings are just racist – though perhaps cloaked, perhaps the motte in the metaphorical motte and bailey – and as such provide an intellectual foundation for white supremacy. Personally, I'm not sure what the answer is, because I don't know much about these people. But my priors point to the third option as most likely, given how intellectual movements tend to be organized. Which means that the fact of his being embraced by white nationalists was informative, which means it was appropriate for the reporter to include it. Sure, if the reporter is omitting some critical evidence or context that would lead to an opposite conclusion, that would be unethical. But the reporter is not obliged to include every argument that could possibly be made in his defense, either. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Enlightenment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Enlightenment

MikeUt 6y ago
> Personally, I'm not sure what the answer is, because I don't know much about these people. If only a world-famous newspaper could look into this and find out, so that you would not have to guess.

josh_fyi 6y ago

SlateStarCodex had the antineoreactionary FAQ, the best such writing around.

zozbot234 6y ago
Also, "Reactionary Philosophy in an Enormous, Planet-Sized Nutshell" for a look at the "pro" side. It turns out that giving neoreaction a "platform" is not at all incompatible with also offering a rather robust critique of it, that many people might even see as "denouncing" the ideology and its proponents. (But clearly, this level of intellectual subtlety is rather beyond the understanding of NYTimes journalists or editors!)

ryandrake 6y ago

> Just write a poorly written article that alternates between interjecting disconnected ideas and making vague attempts at guilt by association The whole guilt-by-association thing that's going on these days is one of the most worrying cancelation techniques, because it can be done even through a very remote link. I like person A, who likes person B, who likes person C, who happens to also be liked by White Supremacists. therefore I am a White Supremacist (and person A, B, and C, too). How many degrees of separation do you need in order to be safe from the mob?

gedy 6y ago
Not only that, it's also if you don't vocally condemn along with others (no matter the reason) you are also suspect. You support "the status quo" even if you try to stay away from mob behavior, etc.
- ryandrake 6y ago
  That's part of the necessary practice of being "conspicuously upset"[1] about things, that SSC points out. It's not enough that I am upset by White Supremacists (I am). I must conspicuously post over and over how upset I am about things, lest someone confuses a brief period of silence with acceptance of something awful. 1: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anythin...
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    Okay, but it’s not like people expect Scott to denounce these things apropos of nothing. He publicly discusses them. It’s fine to have a nuanced take — but if you leave room for interpretation, don’t be surprised when people side-eye you for not taking a clear stance.
    - julianapostate 6y ago
      Ironically, there was a recent astral codex article about how much writings sucks and becomes useless when you have to appeal to too many stakeholders by constantly re-stating the obvious to keep everyone happy.

mtae 6y ago

The slightest bit of research before commenting would reveal that Nick Land is a prominent neo-reactionary with awful views on race and genetics. He’s not embraced by white nationalists for the cyberpunk aesthetic.

mst 6y ago
And then a slight bit more research would demonstrate that he wrote some fascinating left-leaning stuff before he jumped off that particular cliff, and that that's the stuff Scott thought was interesting.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > And then a slight bit more research would demonstrate that he wrote some fascinating left-leaning stuff before he jumped off that particular cliff, and that that's the stuff Scott thought was interesting. And then, after a little more thought, you'd realize SSC's blog roll entry would direct the reader to the more recent neoreactionary stuff, not the "fascinating left-leaning stuff." It's definitely a bad look to have present-day Nick Land on your blogroll. If you think some of his older stuff was interesting, it's a better idea to link to that directly rather than his home page.
  - Aapje58 6y ago
    He doesn't have present-day Nick Land on the blog roll for his new blog, though.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago

But this "guilty by association" has been going on just about forever. Even Jesus was socially condemned for being a friend of tax-collectors and sinners.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
pfortuny 6y ago
Well, yes, by the hypocrites.

jariel 6y ago

Yes, and this is the 'Grey Lady' - bastion of credibility and objectivity.

dataduck 6y ago

It's not surprising from Cade Metz - he has a long track record of being deeply unethical. https://medium.com/@garyweiss_86200/cade-metz-pulls-a-deep-capture-on-slate-star-codex-da649e8efe7 https://medium.com/@garyweiss_86200/cade-metz-pulls-a-deep-c...

konjin 6y ago

>What a depressing waste of everyone's time. That is an extremely accurate summary of American politics over the last 5 years.

rayiner 6y ago

m463 6y ago

and lots of labeling. I always like to remember that poorly argued points are a click goldmine.

sobani 6y ago

> Link to a pro-vegan website, you must support every terrible ideology that has had at least one vegetarian supporter? We're all adults here, you can say "Hitler". So, unless you completely denounce vegetarianism, you are literally supporting Nazis. (For people who don't get it, Hitler was a vegetarian.)