The fact they sought out basically a random person on Twitter who was advertising dirt on SSC after the initial blowup tells me they probably were aiming to cause harm. Perhaps due to the initial blowup, but I don’t buy that part
-
-
Replying to @Rationalist69
That is ... dumb. Reporters listen to all potential sources and determine who's credible and who isn't. And every source has an agenda--including the subject of the piece, who is also a source.
3 replies 2 retweets 66 likes -
Replying to @espiers
This isn't really the view of the (completely random-ass mostly Doctor Who scholar) who got called in for a quote, and I think her logic is pretty solid.pic.twitter.com/Ssn0oL4yUN
This media may contain sensitive material. Learn more
5 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Rationalist69 @espiers
In what possible sense is Sandifer "random-ass" in the pejorative sense you're using that term and Scott himself is not
1 reply 1 retweet 7 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @espiers
In the sense that, if you deemed Scott worthy of writing about (perhaps you disagree, but they had already crossed that line), this individual strikes me as a pretty random person to include, beyond the scope of advertising dirt on Scott on Twitter.pic.twitter.com/CGJMkf2via
This media may contain sensitive material. Learn more
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Rationalist69 @espiers
She's studied the rationalist movement enough to write the only full-length critical book about them I'm aware of (Neoreaction: A Basilisk)
1 reply 1 retweet 11 likes -
You could say "It's self-published, why should I care about her opinion, however prolix, if academic and commercial gatekeepers don't" But then you'd have to ask the same thing about every single thing Scott, Eliezer, and most of their friends have written
1 reply 1 retweet 17 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @espiers
I don’t care about gatekeepers. My point is just that, if you were looking to do just an examination, a person who wrote a book on a kinda-sorta related phenomenon and was advertising dirt seems odd to go to. If you’re looking to do a hit piece, it makes perfect sensepic.twitter.com/EnRpO8JhOD
This media may contain sensitive material. Learn more
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Rationalist69 @espiers
Right, the definition of "a hit piece" is "one where some of the sources dislike Scott"
3 replies 1 retweet 9 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @espiers
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
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Do you think the point of the article is to be about "Why the blog is popular" That doesn't sound like a news article to me, that sounds like an advertisement that Scott should have to pay market rates for
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @espiers
Not even implying praising (though supposedly it started with good COVID predictions), but especially if he's just a random guy (which, as you note, he kinda is), I would think a starting point would be 'why is this site known and/or influential'pic.twitter.com/LpeFoy3ZP8
This media may contain sensitive material. Learn more
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Rationalist69 @espiers
It's known and influential and also controversial and, in some circles, widely disliked Why is the latter not just as relevant as the former
0 replies 1 retweet 6 likes
End of conversation
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.