3 ms·

Interestingly enough, the blog author skips over the modern concept of Humanism as applied and mixed into Rationality. I was pleasantly surprised by the action

by fao_ 6y ago

Interestingly enough, the blog author skips over the modern concept of Humanism as applied and mixed into Rationality. I was pleasantly surprised by the actions of the newspaper, New Humanist -- it is a Rationalist publication but mixes in Intersectional analysis seamlessly to provide quality journalism without accidentally moving towards the "Nazi" or "Racist" side of the spectrum as many other supposedly "Rationalist" newspapers do, by acknowledging that at a certain point it is not appropriate or rational to implicitly support these ideologies through trying to obtain a purely "Rationalist" understanding of the world, and that one's own rational understanding must be tempered by learning from the experienced of the systemically oppressed, otherwise you risk eliminating them from the "equation", and your consideration. It's a very worthwhile newspaper to read, it is high quality and I cannot recommend it enough. > I’m happy someone is pursuing these questions, but I don’t find the contemplations of these extreme scenarios to be particularly enlightening. Indeed. As a final note, it is worth it to know that Scott Alexander only decided he disliked the article from the NYT, not when he found out they were going to "out" him, but when he realised it was going to have a critical lens! Highly amusing!

zaphar 6y ago
As a final note, it is worth it to know that Scott Alexander only decided he disliked the article from the NYT, not when he found out they were going to "out" him, but when he realised it was going to have a critical lens! Highly amusing! I have seen absolutely no evidence to support this sentence. Nor do you present any yourself in this post. Pure unsubstantiated rumor is rarely productive or useful.
- fao_ 6y ago
  Interesting that you didn't bother looking for it. I'm not sure how you can "see" something if you don't look :) Anyway, the note is copied pretty much verbatim from the Rational Wiki page on him: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scott_Alexander https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scott_Alexander Which links here: https://web.archive.org/web/20200623184053/https://twitter.com/melissamcewen/status/1275493977672777733 https://web.archive.org/web/20200623184053/https://twitter.c... It links to the bottom of the thread in question. The gist of it is that, Scott Alexander communicated and had an open dialogue with the reporter, he knew that his name was going to be published (At the least, he didn't demand anonymity). The reporter initially had a positive take on SSC. The person in the linked tweet spoke to the reporter and introduced them to a different perspective, and put them in contact with other people with a slightly negative perspective of the blog. As soon as the reported started contacting those people, however, Scott suddenly had a problem with his name being published, and the blog was deleted.
  - zaphar 6y ago
    My policy regarding unsubstantiated rumor is to ignore it not go trying figure out if it's true or not. The burden is on the person spreading the rumor to back it up not on me to do it for them. If you had linked the above in your original comment it would have been of marginally more value than than the unsubstantiated statement. That said your link does not in fact substantiate your statement that I can see. It is speculation on twitter also with no substantiation. Rumors frequently have a long chain where links in the chain use previous links as substantiation. It's why rumor is so unproductive in the first place. It poses as fact but if you chase it far enough frequently ends up being false or misleading.
    - fao_ 6y ago
      > It is speculation on twitter No, all of the statements are there, they're first-hand accounts. The rest can easily be derived from given evidence. They state first that they talked to the reporter, who had a positive bent. They state that the reporter became increasing interested in a second perspective on SSC. Third, it is a fact that Scott Alexander knew that the reporter was doing the article, and did not request anonymity (Otherwise the reporter would not have disclosed his name at any stage). So it can be seen that anonymity was not of interest to Scott when the reporter started out on the article. Four, Scott Alexander deleted the site immediately after the reporter started seeking out opposing views. He did not do this at any time beforehand, when it would have been more prudent to do so.
      - zaphar 6y ago
        Your first statement is verifiable as is your second. The third however is not. It is speculation as is the fourth. Since your rumor hinges on the third and the fourth it must still be considered unsubstantiated.

by fao_ 6y ago

zaphar 6y ago

As a final note, it is worth it to know that Scott Alexander only decided he disliked the article from the NYT, not when he found out they were going to "out" him, but when he realised it was going to have a critical lens! Highly amusing! I have seen absolutely no evidence to support this sentence. Nor do you present any yourself in this post. Pure unsubstantiated rumor is rarely productive or useful.

fao_ 6y ago
Interesting that you didn't bother looking for it. I'm not sure how you can "see" something if you don't look :) Anyway, the note is copied pretty much verbatim from the Rational Wiki page on him: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scott_Alexander https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scott_Alexander Which links here: https://web.archive.org/web/20200623184053/https://twitter.com/melissamcewen/status/1275493977672777733 https://web.archive.org/web/20200623184053/https://twitter.c... It links to the bottom of the thread in question. The gist of it is that, Scott Alexander communicated and had an open dialogue with the reporter, he knew that his name was going to be published (At the least, he didn't demand anonymity). The reporter initially had a positive take on SSC. The person in the linked tweet spoke to the reporter and introduced them to a different perspective, and put them in contact with other people with a slightly negative perspective of the blog. As soon as the reported started contacting those people, however, Scott suddenly had a problem with his name being published, and the blog was deleted.
- zaphar 6y ago
  My policy regarding unsubstantiated rumor is to ignore it not go trying figure out if it's true or not. The burden is on the person spreading the rumor to back it up not on me to do it for them. If you had linked the above in your original comment it would have been of marginally more value than than the unsubstantiated statement. That said your link does not in fact substantiate your statement that I can see. It is speculation on twitter also with no substantiation. Rumors frequently have a long chain where links in the chain use previous links as substantiation. It's why rumor is so unproductive in the first place. It poses as fact but if you chase it far enough frequently ends up being false or misleading.
  - fao_ 6y ago
    > It is speculation on twitter No, all of the statements are there, they're first-hand accounts. The rest can easily be derived from given evidence. They state first that they talked to the reporter, who had a positive bent. They state that the reporter became increasing interested in a second perspective on SSC. Third, it is a fact that Scott Alexander knew that the reporter was doing the article, and did not request anonymity (Otherwise the reporter would not have disclosed his name at any stage). So it can be seen that anonymity was not of interest to Scott when the reporter started out on the article. Four, Scott Alexander deleted the site immediately after the reporter started seeking out opposing views. He did not do this at any time beforehand, when it would have been more prudent to do so.
    - zaphar 6y ago
      Your first statement is verifiable as is your second. The third however is not. It is speculation as is the fourth. Since your rumor hinges on the third and the fourth it must still be considered unsubstantiated.