Reading a little Slate Star Codex (people had sent me links in the past but never really felt excited about it). Style is pure David Foster Wallace, no? (In any case, glad someone sent me the whole oeuvre today)
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @antoniogm @MacaesBruno
I went back & read him on a topic I do research on (gender & CS) and it was many pages of "okay this makes sense" followed by an extraordinary evidence-free claim (that was, in fact, very wrong) that was the whole turn in the argument. Nobody caught it. This is the smart crowd?
2 replies 0 retweets 21 likes -
I checked his things because of this brouhaha (not regular follower; obviously he should be allowed to be pseudonymous) and it ranged from (smart and interesting, closer to his domains) to are you kidding me (stuff that would only fly among adoring followers, not real debate).
0 replies 0 retweets 18 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @can @WillOremus and
Well, I'm ok with the sensitive topics, I just wanted to see if it was some bastion of fierce debate (which I like) with strong opposing views battling it out. My impression is that his commenters aren't up to it, which makes it like... most rest of internet, a cloistered space.+
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
That said, with him having taken the blog down, I have only looked at a few posts and I may be missing the comments (looking at the cache) and maybe the depth of real challenge that did happen? Anyway, I hope NYT backs down because writers have a right to pseudonymity.
0 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
The right to use a pen name is such a basic right that I can't believe it's even up for consideration or debate in . I just looked up the blog more because I was curious after the brouhaha.
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.