Someone released emails from Scott Alexander proving the implication was in fact true. Metz talked to the people around the leaker so it's probable he had a good source for this belief. Also if you read SSC it was pretty obvious
-
-
Somebody mentioned that Scott recommended links include Gregory Cochrane’s blog. Cochran’s is an HBD believer who worked frequently with white nationalist Henry Harpending. It’s a weird belief system to recommend.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @mariachong @FreidrichVon and
The NYT reference to Murray should have been stated more clearly. It falsely labels that particular comment as having an association, while missing the chance (if true) to provide evidence of broader sympathy with race science.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
So why was it stated the way it was? It’s not like the author could have accidentally made that association in the sentences right? They were keenly aware, they even put the Charles Murray association in the next sentence to drive it home. Why?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Maria Chong Retweeted Sean Last
My take is it was a C+ analysis. The author didn’t have the cooking skills (intellectual ability) to understand why the restaurant has some issues. But it is a Michelin restaurant with some serious issues. Cf.https://twitter.com/Sean__Last/status/1362265994270560256 …
Maria Chong added,
Sean Last @Sean__LastIf you've followed his work for a while, it's been obvious that Scott Alexander is, or at least was, secretly a hereditarian. If all the secret hereditarian intellectuals were honest, their numbers would be enough to stop themselves from being ruined... https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2021/02/backstabber-brennan-knifes-scott-alexander-with-2014-email/ …Show this thread1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
But if that is the case, shouldn’t he have not put the grossly misleading sentences in? Or shouldn’t the fact checkers Will talked about at length have said something?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Not the kind of thing a fact checker would look at I think. They are looking at facts not qualify of argument much less for things only implied not stated
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
So you’re suggesting that this kind of misleading association is a common journalistic practice that I only caught because I’m familiar with he subject matter? Or is it an uncommon thing that the author should be in trouble for?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
The association is not misleading! It's true!
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
You’re defending “Hitler was a vegetarian” arguments where the journalist says “X agreed with Hitler and X noted that Hitler wanted to kill Jews” as if that’s ok.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
If some vegetarian actually said "I feel like Adolf Hitler and I are the only true vegetarians in the world" that would be a very odd thing to say and would raise questions about that vegetarians true motives
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @Sebastian_Hols and
Scott didn't just randomly cite Murray by accident, he named Murray as one of the very few people who shared what he sees as his outlook on poverty and welfare (he outright said "I think I'm alone in this quadrant with Charles Murray")
1 reply 1 retweet 9 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.