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 …
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @espiers
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
1 reply 1 retweet 12 likes -
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
There is literally nothing in that exchange that indicates that the reporter was hostile to the subject. It does indicate that there was a new news peg because Scott had published his post about being "doxxed." (Ron Howard voiceover: he was not doxxed.)
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @espiers
He was doxxed and lol if that's your standard, "let's find some idiot for a negative quote because I'm mad he's mad about the doxxing"
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
It's not "I'm mad he's mad", it's that anyone acting as histrionically terrified of exposure as Scott was instantly provokes curiosity in most observers as to what on earth he's trying to hide
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.