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.
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @paulg
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.
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @ThadMcMonster @paulg
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.
3 replies 2 retweets 20 likes -
Replying to @primalpoly @paulg
Yeah it's a stretch. But if my therapist was a literal Nazi, I'd probably want to know. (Not that this remotely applies in this circumstance).
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Would that help you? I don't see how being told that information would improve your mental health.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Well, I wouldn't want to visit a therapist with values which are terribly contradictory to everything I believe. Are you arguing there is no information which could be revealed about a therapist which would impact your decision to see them?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
You're doing a classic motte and bailey fallacy here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy …
-
-
Really, I thought I was steel manning?
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.