Watching people who hate cancel culture try to cancel the NYT is hilarious. Watching them try to cancel individual NYT writers is gross.
All because Scott Alexander retroactively decided his last name is private information and threw a tantrum.
All because Scott Alexander retroactively decided his last name is private information and threw a tantrum.
I saw quite a few people here, as well as the two SSC subreddits, going out of their way to encourage polite outreach to the editor and to avoid antagonizing the actual author. So far as to discourage the naming of the author.
Not denying it may be happening, it just does not seem to jive with the majority response (in my bubble).
EDIT 2: Whoops, this was meant as a reply to charia's point.
This reply about Scott Alexander appears to be the first usage[0]: https://twitter.com/ChrisSt41125908/status/12755577894154649...
[0] https://twitter.com/search?q=until%3A2020-06-24%20since%3A20...
[1] https://twitter.com/search?q=until%3A2020-06-24%20since%3A20...
Was there backlash because the NYT published an opinion some disagree with? Or was PPI going to be exposed that hurt a medical professional maintain his practice?
I think one carries a very real reason for backlash. The other, not so much.
Also, what was being requested? Did Scott make this personal and ask for someone to get fired? If he did, equating this with actions like that makes sense. If not, it makes no sense.
Last, your use of the word tantrum for an adult making rational decisions related to the well being of himself and his patients only highlights your own emotive state.
Deleting a site you've posted on thousands of times is a quality tantrum.
On the actual subject, scale and magnitude are issues that most rational beings consider. His avoiding people knowing his name on scale makes sense. Our society in general has even codified this difference in law by separating 'public figures' from 'private individuals'. It seems disingenuous to ignore this concern or equate using your name online with having it published on one of the most read publications in the world.
As soon as an argument becomes "you're not sticking to the of X" it's become fruitless.
An over-reaction is by definition the result of an emotional response. Pretending that it's not is being just as emotional even if they're pretending to be objective.
> Our society in general has even codified this difference in law by separating 'public figures' from 'private individuals'.
Scott Alexander is far more likely to be on the side of a public figure than a private individual, given the laws we've seen and the way these things play out in court. An example of such a thing is the Sandy Hook school shooting where the parents are considered public figures and not private individuals despite them being thrust into the public spotlight through no action of their own. Note that this codified difference in law matters primarily for defamation cases.
Over-reacting is not 'by definition the result of an emotional response'. I'm not sure why you feel the need to make things up. My immune system over-reacts to many external stimuli and causes allergic reactions. These are not emotional. So you're stating things that are easily and demonstrably wrong. This is the epitome of disingenuous.
> Scott Alexander is far more likely to be on the side of a public figure than a private individual
If you're a lawyer and want to expand on this, I'll listen. Otherwise, your lack of accuracy in previous statements makes me dubious about your argument.
The dictionary definition of overreaction is "a more emotional or forcible response than is justified". You're attempting to use the clinical definition of an overreaction in place of someone personally overreacting, which is incorrect. He didn't take down his blog as a result of his immune system overreacting, he had an emotional reaction which made him take down his blog. From a rationalist standpoint you're wrong.
> Otherwise, your lack of accuracy in previous statements makes me dubious about your argument.
This would be an emotional reaction to me defining the term overreaction correctly.
Someone can 'overreact when driving' and flip the car on a turn. I regularly over react when playing video games and miss a jump. Companies over react to data and make bad choices.
So not just in a 'clinical definition'. I've given you plenty of examples of over reacting being non-emotional. Even your definition, the one you quote, says that over reactions can be non emotional. An over reaction can be, by the very definition of the word, a reasonable miscalculation of risk/reward without having to imply emotion.
> This would be an emotional reaction to me defining the term overreaction correctly.
Actually, it's quite reasonable that if someone says demonstrably false statements, the next thing they say is put into question. If you choose to see this reasoning as inherently emotional, that's your prerogative, but it seems quite baseless.
Scott Alexander's last name is also easy to find. His first name is Scott, his middle name is Alexander, he's a psychiatrist, and he lives in Michigan. This is all information he publicized.
And he has also published under his last name, even on SSC, within the last decade.
My implied wishes (and really, his wishes) aren't terribly important. If either of us do something newsworthy, it's not doxing to attach our name to the news.
Also, if merely linking a real name to a pseudonymous online identity is doxing, then Alexander self-doxxed himself by republishing one of his SSC posts under his real name (while noting their origin) in book published by Springer.
An accurate definition of doxing would contain several components, a few of which would be: it's not doxing if you make the link yourself, and it's not doxing for a 3rd party to repeat the link you made (akin to the first sale doctrine).
Publishing under your real first names, and letting people know where you work, is pretty far from "perfect isolation", isn't it?
He's not stupid. Why did he chose such a terrible pseudonym?
Retconning SSC as an "anonymous" publication is silly, though, and really dilutes the efforts of people who truly want to or need to remain anonymous.
It's no wonder so many people are not playing the game. Equally so it's telling that "silence equals consent" is the reaction to people checking out of the game - the invested players and GMs really don't like people not playing along.
[0] https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/
Free thought and free inquiry and the freedom to research/discuss/publish unpopular ideas has been a hot topic in recent times. For instance, see the protest of Omar Wasow's paper on protesting (https://www.chronicle.com/article/The-Protesting-of-a-Protes...) or the firing of Steven Hsu (https://quillette.com/2020/07/01/on-steve-hsu-and-the-campai...).