4 ms·

This was my attempt to answer the question: was it ok to 'out' Scott Alexander? I don't mind that someone disagrees - I expect disagreement - but please explain

This was my attempt to answer the question: was it ok to 'out' Scott Alexander? I don't mind that someone disagrees - I expect disagreement - but please explain the downvotes. Was it because SSC was somehow exceptionally controversial? Are there some special circumstances that would prevent the usual sort of anonymity extended to, say, any book author that talked about personal mental health problems? I think that what I'm trying to say is that there have been many reasons given, some better some worse, but I personally find this one the most compelling. Anonymity is commonly extended to authors of books, and the fact checking doesn't necessarily need to break that anonymity. So why is this case so different?

eternalban 6y ago
Content matter is not the primary concern for censors. If you consider, for example, that most content comprehension is subjective anyway, it should be clear that what is the concern is the establishment of authoritative and/or trusted voices. [p.s. i.e. this sort of establishment behavior leaks insider knowledge of what it takes to shape opinions in human society. Answer: the soap box.] related: Killing the chicken to scare monkey. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_the_chicken_to_scare_the_monkey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_the_chicken_to_scare_the_... So not a "CEO" just an unfortunte internet chicken that has been used to obliquely instruct unkown monkeys with aspirations to taking up 'The Pen'. (Remember, that mightier than kinetic weaponry instrument of the intelligent?) Call it a 'hit job rehearsal'.
- webnrrd2k 6y ago
  I'm not really familiar with the chicken/monkey metaphor, but it seems to be about "making an example out of someone in order to threaten others". So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that Scott was made an example of in order for the NYT to scare him and stop his writing, with the end goal of preserving their authority? Honestly, it sounds very broad and rather conspiratorial. I'm really not clear on the scope of your statements. Maybe I could believe that it's a clash of cultures thing, where a qualitative culture (typified by, say, Liberal Arts/English majors) is in conflict with quantitative STEM/Engineering culture. But I don't think that's what you mean. Am I wrong?
  - eternalban 6y ago
    It is conspirational but it addresses what imho was a wrong conclusion. There was an item in article that basically said 'this is an obscure figure, why go after him?' And I just wanted to point out that that reasoning is not conclusive and rather narrow: that going after a relative nobody can actually be of utility, in an oblique way, for an establishment. > You're saying that Scott was made an example of in order for the NYT to scare him and stop his writing, with the end goal of preserving their authority? I don't know, it's just a hypothesis, but this is the question you can answer for yourself: would the proverbial Scott today start an anon blog, or would he first do a liability analysis regarding his personal and professional life? In otherwords, has the social calculus of anonymous [non-estalishment] expression been altered in a significant way?

eternalban 6y ago

Content matter is not the primary concern for censors. If you consider, for example, that most content comprehension is subjective anyway, it should be clear that what is the concern is the establishment of authoritative and/or trusted voices. [p.s. i.e. this sort of establishment behavior leaks insider knowledge of what it takes to shape opinions in human society. Answer: the soap box.] related: Killing the chicken to scare monkey. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_the_chicken_to_scare_the_monkey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_the_chicken_to_scare_the_... So not a "CEO" just an unfortunte internet chicken that has been used to obliquely instruct unkown monkeys with aspirations to taking up 'The Pen'. (Remember, that mightier than kinetic weaponry instrument of the intelligent?) Call it a 'hit job rehearsal'.

webnrrd2k 6y ago
I'm not really familiar with the chicken/monkey metaphor, but it seems to be about "making an example out of someone in order to threaten others". So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that Scott was made an example of in order for the NYT to scare him and stop his writing, with the end goal of preserving their authority? Honestly, it sounds very broad and rather conspiratorial. I'm really not clear on the scope of your statements. Maybe I could believe that it's a clash of cultures thing, where a qualitative culture (typified by, say, Liberal Arts/English majors) is in conflict with quantitative STEM/Engineering culture. But I don't think that's what you mean. Am I wrong?
- eternalban 6y ago
  It is conspirational but it addresses what imho was a wrong conclusion. There was an item in article that basically said 'this is an obscure figure, why go after him?' And I just wanted to point out that that reasoning is not conclusive and rather narrow: that going after a relative nobody can actually be of utility, in an oblique way, for an establishment. > You're saying that Scott was made an example of in order for the NYT to scare him and stop his writing, with the end goal of preserving their authority? I don't know, it's just a hypothesis, but this is the question you can answer for yourself: would the proverbial Scott today start an anon blog, or would he first do a liability analysis regarding his personal and professional life? In otherwords, has the social calculus of anonymous [non-estalishment] expression been altered in a significant way?