for a piece that was supposed to be published last summer about such an interesting topic, it's weirdly slapdash and shallow
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @mattyglesias @DKThomp
Yes. You prove someone has retrograde views by pointing to what they write or say. Metz can't do that, so he’s left with saying Scott once agreed with Charles Murray, had a objectionable blog on his blog roll, or replied in a supportive way to someone who said something bad. Sad.
1 reply 0 retweets 14 likes -
Yeah it's not like Scott wrote a ridiculously long and overwrought essay specifically about hiding your "un-PC" beliefs and speaking about them in code ("hiding your power level", as the kids say)https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/23/kolmogorov-complicity-and-the-parable-of-lightning/ …
1 reply 7 retweets 33 likes -
I will happily concede to you and Metz that Scott is unbearably verbose. I rarely get through his posts, and won’t get through your link. But the NYT piece was full of insinuations, misrepresentations and transparent malice, amply documented elsewhere.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Okay, the point wasn't making fun of Scott's writing style Let me summarize the essay behind the link, since you won't bother reading it: Scott believes there are unsayable "un-PC" truths in the world today you have to carefully talk around if you're a smart rational person
3 replies 2 retweets 43 likes -
My brief is against a sloppy piece in the NYT. Your brief is against what a writer won’t say but “obviously” secretly believes. (Unfalsifiable, no?) That writer takes 5000 words to clear his throat. Sorry, but I can’t think of a less profitable rabbit hole to run into.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
How the hell do you know it's sloppy (ie inaccurate) if you don't actually read Scott's articles Christ the most bizarre thing about this mess is the sheer number of people claiming to be his fans who apparently read much less of his work than his haters
2 replies 1 retweet 26 likes -
By following the source of quotes and seeing that they don’t say what Metz says they say. Or looking at the weird guilt by association swipes, that are ridiculous on their face. Not hard. Judging the insinuations about his hidden beliefs? Too hard for me. I’ll leave that to you.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
The quotes do in fact say what Metz says they say and Scott's fans are working the spin machine overtime to try to pretend context makes them better
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.