3 ms·

The clever playground bully doesn't say "let's beat up Scott", at least not where teachers can hear - he knows he can say something like "Scott annoyed me a bit

The clever playground bully doesn't say "let's beat up Scott", at least not where teachers can hear - he knows he can say something like "Scott annoyed me a bit yesterday" and his followers/admirers will know that beating up Scott might just earn them popularity points. The clever mafia boss, at least in the movies, doesn't leave a paper trail showing they've ordered a hit job on someone, they say something like wouldn't it be convenient if Scott weren't seen around here for a while? (Even Trump had the sense not to say directly on camera, let's break into the capitol and smash things up.) The NYT piece has an ugly taste of "I'm not going to say I endorse direct action against Scott, BUT" when it lists how he could be seen as "associated" with sexists, racists and so on. Let's not pretend otherwise: Cade Metz knows exactly that lesser accusations have brought people down in the past.

qz_ 6y ago
You could make the same point about this article.
- red_admiral 6y ago
  I think it's very unlikely that a SSC reader will commit any kind of crime against a NYT reporter or their friends and families - they're much more the kind of people [in favour of niceness, community and civilisation](https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/23/in-favor-of-niceness-community-and-civilization/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/23/in-favor-of-niceness-c...) To quote Scott: > Liberalism does not conquer by fire and sword. Liberalism conquers by communities of people who agree to play by the rules, slowly growing until eventually an equilibrium is disturbed. Its battle cry is not "Death to the unbelievers!" but "If you’re nice, you can join our cuddle pile!"
- ulucs 6y ago
  Yeah, the paper which lead to war in Iraq vs some blogger with at most 10,000 reach. That's clearly a fair comparison
- johncena33 6y ago
  The infamous internet argument that is "calling out negative things is a negative itself". "You just have to go meta, and you will see it's all the same." "Everything is relative/subjective" These type of generic arguments bring nothing valuable to the discussion table. These arguments are used to shut down conversation in a very self-aggrandizing manner.

qz_ 6y ago

You could make the same point about this article.

red_admiral 6y ago
I think it's very unlikely that a SSC reader will commit any kind of crime against a NYT reporter or their friends and families - they're much more the kind of people [in favour of niceness, community and civilisation](https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/23/in-favor-of-niceness-community-and-civilization/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/23/in-favor-of-niceness-c...) To quote Scott: > Liberalism does not conquer by fire and sword. Liberalism conquers by communities of people who agree to play by the rules, slowly growing until eventually an equilibrium is disturbed. Its battle cry is not "Death to the unbelievers!" but "If you’re nice, you can join our cuddle pile!"
ulucs 6y ago
Yeah, the paper which lead to war in Iraq vs some blogger with at most 10,000 reach. That's clearly a fair comparison
johncena33 6y ago
The infamous internet argument that is "calling out negative things is a negative itself". "You just have to go meta, and you will see it's all the same." "Everything is relative/subjective" These type of generic arguments bring nothing valuable to the discussion table. These arguments are used to shut down conversation in a very self-aggrandizing manner.