It's kind of strange to watch the prevalence of this victim mentality amongst the 'Rationalists'. The article starts by quoting 5 paragraphs that include callin

It's kind of strange to watch the prevalence of this victim mentality amongst the 'Rationalists'. The article starts by quoting 5 paragraphs that include calling the blog erudite and funny, interviewing legal scholars about it and referencing rocket scientists who read. Paragraphs that go out of their way to describe the extremely broad range of views of those who read it. This author shows you those 5 paragraphs and concludes by talking 1 sentence out of it and goes "Look! He's calling us white supremacists!". Note the difference, where the author agrees with someone like Damore, he'll go to lengths to say >Damore qualified his claims throughout the infamous memo with language like "may in part explain" But for the NYT, who he just doesn't like, he can ignore 4 straight paragraphs in order to get outraged about the 5th. It's also this bizarre double think - the NYT telling readers that Siskind says the media ignores men being harassed by women is clearly an attempt to get their readers thinking Siskind is some kind of mad extremist. Oh but also, that's actually true and the media does ignore that. Well which is it, are you being discredited for your crazy views, or is the NYT accurately reporting something you do think. Frankly, the way this comes across is a group of people who have convinced themselves that they're going to be called racist and sexist, and as a result whenever someone talks about them at all they respond as if they've been called racist or sexist. The NYT article actually didn't do that, which just makes it bizarre when they react like it did.