3 ms·

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.

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.