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.
-
-
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 -
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
1 reply 1 retweet 11 likes -
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
1 reply 3 retweets 17 likes
I mean what you're trying to say here is the Scott ISN'T a controversial figure, he's universally beloved, and the NYT is contacting "random people" to create a controversy where none exists
-
-
...Which is immediately and massively contradicted by the claim that "doxing" Scott could have such grave consequences for his life that to do so is unconscionable
2 replies 1 retweet 9 likes -
Scott certainly acts a lot like someone aware that lots of people don't like him The whole premise of his fearful complaints that letting people know who he is would be damaging or harmful is that there are many people in the world who think being the author of SSC is bad
1 reply 1 retweet 12 likes - 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.