4 ms·

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 unde

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?