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 -
If you were looking to do a hit piece, you would have brought up all the rape and fascism going on in the community. Which I *know* is stuff the NYTimes were aware of, because one of the people they consulted with knows about this shit.
1 reply 1 retweet 6 likes -
If I wanted to do a "hit piece" I would drop almost all of the other shit and do a narrowly focused "When Effective Altruism Got
#MeToo
'ed" narrative about Kathy Forth's suicide
It's by far the most important story about this clique and it sank like a stone2 replies 2 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @CultGuide and
I could argue about why rationalist writing and ideas suck all day and night I don't fault anyone for not caring about that and tuning out though What they SHOULD care about is a woman leaving a suicide note saying she killed herself after years of constant sexual abuse/assault
1 reply 2 retweets 14 likes
The story would never get published, most likely - too inside baseball, too volatile The inherently lopsided situation of pitting the words of a dead person against people who are very much alive and equipped to aggressively defend their reputations
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @CultGuide and
Arthur Chu Retweeted Arthur Chu
But the one piece of writing people should know Scott for isn't any of the bloviating on his blog, not even the "controversial" stuff It's the Tumblr post calling Forth a liar and standing with her "victims"https://twitter.com/arthur_affect/status/1010592775589359616?s=19 …
Arthur Chu added,
2 replies 1 retweet 15 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @CultGuide and
calling a suicide victim a liar doesn’t seem in line with Scott’s recent insistence that being mean or cruel to others is always bad no matter who the target, or even whether it’s true, but I guess I’m just not Big Brain Rational enough to get it
1 reply 0 retweets 3 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.