5 ms·

> 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

> 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?

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
The culture you're describing is just utterly foreign to many people. It's certainly not how my social networks work; nobody's ever asked me to denounce my friends for believing bad things, nor would I ever ask someone else to do so. What you're reading as "fetishizing fact and logic" is an earnest attempt to understand what your unfamiliar cultural standards are.
- FlownScepter 6y ago
  > nobody's ever asked me to denounce my friends for believing bad things Probably because you aren't in a position of social influence, and/or your friends aren't propagating dangerous ideas? That's all the more reason to skewer those that do and are, precisely because of the platforming effects they have.
  - depressedpanda 6y ago
    What dangerous ideas would you say Scott Alexander has propagated?
    - erichocean 6y ago
      > What dangerous ideas would you say Scott Alexander has propagated? The idea that the "Gray Tribe" is anything but a well-written propaganda effort targeting midwits to keep them supporting the Blue Tribe (and most importantly, to keep the Blue Tribe in power) as the problems mount and the failures become harder and harder to excuse.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    Again, you're assuming a lot of cultural context here that isn't universally shared. I truly, honestly don't know what people mean when they say "dangerous ideas". My intuitive interpretation is "ideas which tell people to go be violent", but the term is very frequently used to refer to ideas which don't call for violence, so that can't be right.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

The culture you're describing is just utterly foreign to many people. It's certainly not how my social networks work; nobody's ever asked me to denounce my friends for believing bad things, nor would I ever ask someone else to do so. What you're reading as "fetishizing fact and logic" is an earnest attempt to understand what your unfamiliar cultural standards are.

FlownScepter 6y ago
> nobody's ever asked me to denounce my friends for believing bad things Probably because you aren't in a position of social influence, and/or your friends aren't propagating dangerous ideas? That's all the more reason to skewer those that do and are, precisely because of the platforming effects they have.
- depressedpanda 6y ago
  What dangerous ideas would you say Scott Alexander has propagated?
  - erichocean 6y ago
    > What dangerous ideas would you say Scott Alexander has propagated? The idea that the "Gray Tribe" is anything but a well-written propaganda effort targeting midwits to keep them supporting the Blue Tribe (and most importantly, to keep the Blue Tribe in power) as the problems mount and the failures become harder and harder to excuse.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  Again, you're assuming a lot of cultural context here that isn't universally shared. I truly, honestly don't know what people mean when they say "dangerous ideas". My intuitive interpretation is "ideas which tell people to go be violent", but the term is very frequently used to refer to ideas which don't call for violence, so that can't be right.