Meanwhile, individual citations within the piece that Alexander wrote are longer than 2000 words. In his rebuttal, he prides himself for having written "thousands of words" to pre-but his critics. There's nothing you can say in 10 words that Alexander can't say in 1000.
Contrary to what I think a lot of Alexander's fans think, this isn't a good thing. Clarity in writing is a sign of clarity of thought. But I think something even more sinister is happening with SlateStarCodex, a blog I would describe as "not necessarily a white supremacist blog, but surely a favorite among educated white supremacists". It's a tactic anyone who's trudged through Mencius Moldbug knows well: if you write every possible thing about racism, you can superficially insulate your arguments from any conceivable criticism. People will be inclined to believe the best of you: friends and respected acquaintances will have, in the past, approvingly cited your writing before. Pointing out that the emperor's new clothes might, maybe, can I be reading this right, include a pointy white hood? That's pretty awkward and embarrassing.
It's worth pointing out that in the restrained setting of a 1000 word response, Alexander manages to squeeze in a lot of disingenuous snark. He repeatedly refers to pieces that the author he's commenting on didn't write, simply because they appeared in the same magazine. He quotes a line from a previous piece, about how we tend to see racists as monsters, despite the fact that the whole piece agrees with him. He scare-quotes the author's experience ("moved in progressive circles") after snarking about not questioning his lived experience, before questioning his lived experience. At the end of it, I'm no closer to knowing what it is Alexander actually thinks about racism.
But that is, I think, his objective.
The author you mention is the editor in chief of said magazine, not simply someone whose writings share a platform. Taken in context, I think that's relevant to Alexander's point; even if we disagree on that, I still think it's misleading for you not to mention it.
> At the end of it, I'm no closer to knowing what it is Alexander actually thinks about racism.
This is a rebuttal to a rebuttal to what Alexander actually thinks about racism, not the post where Alexander writes what he actually thinks about racism.
Finally,
> "not necessarily a white supremacist blog, but surely a favorite among educated white supremacists"
That's a non sequitur and ad hominem. If educated white supremacists enjoy the New York Times — because lots of people enjoy the NYT — would you use that to snark at the NYT? If not, then be more precise about what you mean regarding this blog having any link to white supremacists. (edit: As written, it's a motte and bailey. You get to have the dig at SSC — "linked to white supremacy!" — but if anyone calls you on it you get to retreat to "but it's literally true!")