3 ms·
I think there's a misunderstanding here -- the social justice folks were/are still a core part of Scott's audience. Without them, you're right, the conversation
by dnissley 6y ago
I think there's a misunderstanding here -- the social justice folks were/are still a core part of Scott's audience. Without them, you're right, the conversation would be pretty one sided. Or at least, incomplete.
The difference is that the usual tactics that would earn some social justice advocates the title "warrior" were not tolerated. E.g. empty accusations of someone being racist, sexist, etc.
And the above did not only apply to social justice folks, it applied as well to others. Scott handed out permanent and temporary bans to those all across the political spectrum based (at least in my view) mainly on how mean they were being.
- robin21 6y agoWhere's the best place now for this kind of discussion?
- RangerScience 6y agoSSC rebooted as https://astralcodexten.substack.com/ https://astralcodexten.substack.com/ sooo probably there. I wasn't a part of the Discord for SSC before, and I'm only barely lurking there now, but I presume that's still the place.
- RangerScience 6y agoIMO we keep using phrase "free speech is important" when what we mean is "free discussion is important". SSC was a place for free discussion, which is why that all would have worked. AFAIK we do this because "free speech" has particular historical and legal meaning, even if the explanations as to why it's a good thing are mostly about free discussion.