I think people are conflating two issues: Doxxing Scott is a bad thing. But arguably, Scott is the least solicitous of his privacy of any pseudonymous blogger I know. If he's writing about his patients (I don't think he is), then he should have been much more careful.https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1276036256602841089 …
-
Show this thread
-
But suppose there's nothing of a professional nature in his posts, nothing that will freak out his patients. If he isn't worried about that, but wants to protect his patients anyway, then he should have been far more careful.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
I don't think that's really what he's worried about. He doesn't want his name out there, certainly. But I don't think the professional content is his concern. I think he's worried about the fact that there's just no reason for the NYTimes to write about him.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
And if there's no real reason, then it means (despite his assurances otherwise) that the Times wants to highlight a site that discusses difficult topics instead of banning them. That will inevitably lead to calls to end Scott, and at that point, his professional life is cooked.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
Now, Scott says he's not worried about the article the Tims says it's planning to write, that he's worried about his name being out there. Maybe. But it's important to recognize the two different issues.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
1. NY Times publishes his name, his patients freak out but the whole world is like oh, how cool, SSC sounds like a great place. 2. NY Times publishes his name, his patients don't freak out, but the whole world goes OH MY GOD THIS PLACE IS RACIST and then Scott is fired.
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likesShow this thread -
Moreover, once Scott is fired, every mainstream journalist who ever mentioned Scott positively is at risk: Trende, McArdle, and oh, yeah, Ross Douthat (who was wondering how safe he was a few days ago).
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likesShow this thread -
In the second case, even if the Times left Scott's name out of it, there'd be an outcry, a demand to find it, and it'd be found. So the real issue, to me, isn't NYTimes publishing Scott's name, it's that NYTimes is going to write about Scott.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
And now that Scott has killed his blog, presumably, NYTimes will no longer write about him as a racist. Look at it as a form of blackmail. I can't help but think Scott knows this, and understands that he's killing his blog to meet NYT's terms.
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likesShow this thread
Scott has a rule: always give in to all blackmail and intimidation by leftists because this helps the left and not giving in risks a preference cascade against the left which Scott would find horrifying. See his deletion of the "culture war" thread and his explicit noting of why
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.