I did it. I wrote 4,000 words about the Slate Star Codex article and put it on my heretofore dead Substack. I will almost certainly regret it for a million reasons, but I am a masochist, so here it is:https://mynewbandis.substack.com/p/slate-star-clusterfuck …
-
-
The fragility here is just funny Sandifer doesn't like the NYT piece - most of Scott's critics don't - and posted afterwards how everything she said was diluted to almost nothing and made into just "Here's some reasons people dislike Scott" with all the evidence stripped out
-
My read on the NYT piece is that it's a typical anodyne, weaksauce profile of a controversial figure saying "This is a controversial figure" without really at all getting into it Which is extremely common But I guess it's "libel" to even point out the controversy
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Making people justify their basic human rights is just “open discussion”, but being critical of that attitude after a deep dive into the leader of the movement and the experience of what anything less than fawning coverage brings is bias. Now here’s 10k more words
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
She would just strike me as low on the list for an overall view of why the blog is popular. I mean heck, even Ross Douthat or Ezra Klein or David Brooks work at the same building and have cited him, ask them? But, if the idea is to link the blog to various nebulous people...pic.twitter.com/87aoNNZdgp
This media may contain sensitive material. Learn more
-
It seems like that’s what she was advertising, and that they took her up on it.pic.twitter.com/7Ne4ymvHIj
This media may contain sensitive material. Learn more
- Show replies
New conversation -
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.