Doxxing Scott is bad, definitely, but we don't have any evidence that the article itself is meant to cancel him, as so many seem to worry.
Show this thread
I hope I'm right, but I don't expect the NYT article on Scott Alexander to be a hit piece. It's revealing that so many worry it will be, though. Few would have 10 years ago. But it's a more dangerous time for ideas now than 10 years ago, and the NYT is also less to be trusted.
-
-
-
Incidentally, having written that, I find myself asking: how can we make the next 10 years a less dangerous time for ideas? I don't have any answers, but I wouldn't be surprised if answers exist, so it might be worth thinking about.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
What other sites like his do you read consistently?
-
nice try cancellation mob
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
What would the rationale of a doxx be if it's something else?
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
When is this story supposed to appear, anyway? Are we all just in limbo until it does?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
"dangerous time for ideas" does not bode well
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I don't think SSC deserves a hit piece, but doxxing is more understandable if it is. "This is a dangerous blog and his patients deserve to know what he does on his spare time," is one thing. If it's "oh well, we're printing his real name lol" that is despicable.
-
I don't know anyone who sees a psychiatrist who wants to know what the psychiatrist does in his spare time. They just want a good psychiatrist who acts professional and who would reject any unlawful demands to share their private information.
- 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.