You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
The Scott Alexander post is a case study for how one can accuse someone of wrongthink and relationships to dangerous boogeymen without making any salient points or printing anything not technically accurate. The facts are true, the narrative is laughable.
Saying something without openly saying it is an NYT technique from way back. They used to do it even when they were a more politically neutral newspaper of record. It was safe enough in the old days, but it's more dangerous in the hands that currently wield it.
![∃𝑋[∅∈𝑋∧∀𝑦(𝑦∈𝑋⇒𝑦∪{𝑦}∈𝑋)]](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/976278603989168129/5nzgS7j4_normal.jpg)
I can’t decide if I’m becoming more perceptive or if it’s becoming more obvious. These days the intellectual level is just... bad?
People more and more seem to want to be fed ready-made knowledge and opinions rather than take on information and form their own rational thoughts around it
I don’t know if your statement that NYT were more neutral in the past is correct. NYT record seems to depend on how cozy they were with administrations in power. Look at the 40s, 60s & 90s. Their neutrality has been all over the place. It’s not surprising given their incentives
Hmmmm how do you be neutral? I suppose deliberately leaving out information is the danger hear. Where you seem neutral by leaving out the interpretation and just the facts but actually strategically leave out important details. What if you just didn't know the details?
Wouldn’t Rationalists have seen all of this coming?
Saying something by not saying it with selective citations presented as "research" - what does it remind me? Oh, SA's blog posts!
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
