The article I linked above is very rational and supported with references.
Someone elsewhere likened it to Galileo. Quillette is more like the Church. It says "the Earth is flat!" How many times do you walk someone through the math of proving the Earth is roundish before you realize it's futile? Unchecked confirmation bias always wins. The best treatment is to starve it of air.
It doesn't need profiles in mostly credible outlets. It needs a faulty backup and restoration plan and a power surge.
I don't think this is a healthy view for the long term success of a culture built around social justice (the combination of how-often-do-I-have-to-repeat-this with it's-not-my-job-to-educate-you). It's been less than two decades since swinging popular opinion over onto the side of broader rights and already the people who should be the stanchest advocates seem tired of trying to persuade people.
This is a fundamental part of human culture, you have to keep explaining the so-called basics again and again, rather than being exasperated whenever people want it explained for the umpteenth time. Learn from religions, and see how even when Christianity was the absolute dominant Western culture, that they were happy to explain it again and again to anyone that wanted to listen. That is what you need to do if you want to keep your gains and keep everyone on the same page.
I might persuade one person in the time they convince or reinforce 10 beliefs in 1000 people. What hope does good information have against that kind of persuasion engine? There's a reason religion's decline started with the rise of mass media. It had competition.
Another alternative is there is some more value in Quillete than you have evaluated.
Who sounds like the church?
Quillette is like a knowledge slot machine to people who want to be well-informed but don't have the resources to do it without leaning on others who do. It lures you in with surface plausibility.
I think you edited after my response below, so:
If your words are true, the entire thing is discredited. It feels hand-wavy, so do you have any examples or references? The article I linked above has supported references and links, and it's quite long. You're saying it's a complete fraud?
I've been down this road. It goes nowhere at best, and turns into demon threads (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/BZtAavpsy9WtMYgEL/demon-thre...) in the average case.
Note the correction:
> An earlier version mistakenly identified the public context of a sign that declared “Alcohol-restricted zone.” Such signs refer to a prohibition on public drinking and appear in many English neighborhoods, irrespective of Muslim population.
That's what you get when islamophobic idiots write articles about a country they don't understand. These signs really are common across England. There's one outside my house. (Muslim population in my street = 0, and in this part of town = < 2%). But the article is full of this kind of horseshit: "no one makes eye contact" - yep, this happens, but it happens between everyone regardless of religion: we don't talk to each other in the south. About the only thing that's true is that some mosques distribute unpleasant material. I'd ban it, but then I'd also ban this shitty article. Mr Ngo is a hypocrite for calling out these pamphlets while writing material as objectionable himself.
Uh, isn't that absolutely everyone?
All your comments on this page are very ugly, and remind me of the SJWs in the movie The Red Pill - so certain they're right that they have no need to think about, engage with, consider the matter/group/publication in question. They are good, the other is bad, by definition.
I hadn't heard of Lehmann or Quillette. Reading most of the comments on this page, I expected some ranting far-right lunatic website. But a couple of comments made me think it might be worth checking out.. And what a surprise. It seems full of interesting articles. Has supportive blurbs from quite a lot of writers I like. I was expecting at best an intelligent site from the right[0]. It's actually nothing like that, just seems full of good articles from good writers. Why the hate and fear on this page, I have no idea. So I bookmarked quillette.com and will be reading their stuff. Thanks HN.
[0] I like to sometimes read "conservative" stuff, to counterbalance my natural far-left inclinations. e.g. I love the books of Roger Kimball and David Stove, and have learnt a lot from them. Plus they're excellent writers, and can be very funny. (Although I read one of Kimball's purely political pieces online once, OMG it was embarrassingly bad. But in matters of general art/culture/philosophy I don't often disagree with him.)
1 is a simple statistical note. 1 is admitting I might be wrong.
1 is a bit harsh. 1 is a bit mean. I shouldn't have called it a rag. They at least seem pro-a lot of things I care about and don't seem malicious.
1 is a tame assessment based on several articles I read that became popular here on HN.
I plan to give it another look based on /u/natalyarostova's comment. Maybe you should do the same with the comments you find so ugly.
Maybe I'm just comparing to when I was what I'd call ugly in the past...
Maybe you're right! I'll keep this in mind for the future.
I mean, yeah, but Quillette is still a rag. It exists to exhaust people with the time, energy, and knowledge to debunk it so people without that will be duped by its arguments that only seem reasonable on the surface and one or two layers below, right above the trash.
Quillette is like a knowledge slot machine to people who want to be well-informed but don't have the resources to do it without leaning on others who do. It lures you in with surface plausibility.