Well actually fuck the nyt. I felt roughly neutral about them but now that I saw them write about a topic I'm deeply familiar with I realize how actually inaccurate and misrepresenting and unethical they are.
-
-
I see that reading and where you're coming from.
-
Yeah, insofar as people can have different readings of anything, you can read either SSC or the NYT article in good or bad faith. I feel like there’s a lot more to be learned from a good faith reading of almost any SSC post than there is from almost any NYT article though
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It truthfully states that it was harbouring right wingers.
-
It harboured left wingers too, why are we only focusing on one half of the political spectrum here
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Yeah. In the middle of the article there are a bunch of paragraphs that you might naively wonder why they were in there, like the Charles Murray or the D'amore thing, but the reason they're in there is to signal to their readers that the SSC people are on the bad guys' team.
-
The reason they are there is that the author is probably mentally ill. I'm serious. Random paragraphs. No connections between anything and no attempt to make connections. A normal person writing this would attempt to connect these points to main thread. Author doesn't bother.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
right; the point is that "important people in silicon valley love this really racist, anti-woman thing"
End of conversation
-
-
-
I'd be curious to know if Ayn Rand was seen as an exemplary intellectual figure. As her "work" has probably the most toxic influence on American politics since the 1940's, it's a useful litmus test. If skynet were a real Silicon Valley product it would be entirely unsurprising.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.