13 ms·
A submission comment since this is very long: Like many hn readers, I personally enjoy Scott Alexander's writing. This is a rather scathing but very long critic
by high_derivative 6y ago
A submission comment since this is very long: Like many hn readers, I personally enjoy Scott Alexander's writing. This is a rather scathing but very long criticism of his style, so I thought it may make for interesting discussion here.
I am trying to make up my mind - OP started with some observations about his style which I found partially relevant, but then derailed into something that seemed motivated more by political disagreement.
- user-the-name 6y agoDid you read the article to the end?
- high_derivative 6y agoYes - I felt it went into a lot of conjecture about certain events and Scott's responsibility/involvement (and very polarising interpretation of these events). I found that less useful and it would have probably been better to separate arguments.
- user-the-name 6y agoSo what is the "political disagreement" there?
- wpietri 6y agoAs somebody who has never liked Siskind's writing, I found this clarifying as to why. Like Sandifer, I think Siskind is absurdly wordy in a way that's murky. And I don't think you can separate the politics from that. What Siskind is up to is thoroughly political and intentionally so. Also intentional is the murk, because it provides him deniability and helps lull an audience into listening to things that plainly stated they would find revolting.