Where is this canceling occurring?

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).

I'm not sure how directly the cancelling is affiliated with SSC, but the #ghostnyt hashtag is a pretty good cancellation motion. The only thing that's really reached my bubble has been outrage and cancellation, though.

https://twitter.com/hashtag/ghostnyt

"They tweeted something bad" -> "get them fired," is substantially different from, "the reporters working for this organization are dangerous," -> "don't talk to them." One is going on the offense, the other is defensive.

I'm fairly sure that #ghostnyt was a reaction to the NYTimes airing of the Tom Cotton op-ed. I don't doubt that some SSC fans latched onto it, but I'd be surprised if even a third of those using #ghostnyt were from SSC aligned people.

EDIT: Would work better if I spelled "NYT" correctly. Oops. Still looks like all SA tweets, though[1].

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...

I feel motive is important.

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.

Personal information that Scott Alexander _already published_ was going to be republished. He's published all his own personal info repeatedly for years.

Deleting a site you've posted on thousands of times is a quality tantrum.

You can consider it an over-reaction. But calling it a tantrum, using that specific word, really highlights your flared emotions. When people resort to value laden language instead of more objective, reasonable language, it says a lot about their mindset.

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.

> You can consider it an over-reaction.

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.

> 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.

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.

> Over-reacting is not 'by definition the result of an emotional response'. 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.

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.

> You're attempting to use the clinical definition of an overreaction

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.

Yes, and none of those apply in this situation. It's an emotional overreaction, per the dictionary definition. You seem to be letting your bias cloud the actual definition of the word and the context of which the word was used in, followed by irrationally dismissing my argument based on said bias.

I like emotion, thanks. The church of rationality is not my bag.

I thank you for your honesty. At least your being open about your position. Too many times people argue against rationality in disguise, acting like they like it but secretly hating it.

I think, like most philosophies, "rationality" is a framework that works introspectively and not useful for applying to other people.

As soon as an argument becomes "you're not sticking to the of X" it's become fruitless.

What's your last name? I think an extremely small fraction of the accounts here would want to tell people their full real life names.

My last name is easy to find. My first name is Kurt, I live in Chicago, I work on startups. I've published with my last name within the last decade.

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.

I'm not sure how to best capture it, but I think there is some irony to be found in the way you state that his last name is "easy to find" and "he lives in Michigan". The first paragraph of the linked article introduces him (correctly, I believe) as "Scott Alexander, the pseudonym of a Bay Area psychiatrist". He once lived in Michigan, but no longer does. One wonders if there is another psychiatrist named "Scott Alexander [something]" who currently lives in Michigan who has been having a really bad few weeks.

I'm confused, are you agreeing with Scott? Both of you have last names that are "easy to find," but neither of you are purposely making it easily available. You both believe that there is a difference between "technically can be found" and "is printed everywhere my pseudonym is." If I were to write your last name in this comment, I would be going against your implied wishes, where your implied wishes are visible because you didn't write it in your comment.

Is the bar for doxing really that low now? My last name is not private. Nor is Scott Alexander's.

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.

> Is the bar for doxing really that low now?

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).

Scott Alexander wasn't worried about readers of Slate Star Codex finding out his real name, he was worried about patients who knew his real name finding Slate Star Codex. Using a pseudonym on the blog was a reasonably effective trapdoor function.

Why publish something you wouldn't want your patients to read?

Psychiatrists want perfect isolation, so that they can treat everyone from far right nuts to far left nuts to plain unsalted nuts. The only way to do that would be to publish nothing, and surely you must agree that at least some psychiatrists must be cursed with good writing skills and something to say.

> Psychiatrists want perfect isolation

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?

His blogging actually predates his medical career.

I'm all for anonymous publishing, I think it's a powerful and useful.

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.

Isn't he effectively doxxing his patients by revealing personal information (albeit slightly jumbled)? He's been writing under the thinnest veneer of anonymity and if he's considered about the things he writes affecting his patients, maybe he's either not taking enough measures to be anonymous or shouldn't be writing those things in the first place as a professional.

It's not easy to find, and I know, because I have tried to find it multiple times, and I haven't found it, and I'm quite google-savvy. I don't doubt that I could find it if I put in enough time, or if I was lucky to try the "right" method on the first try. It's probably also significantly easier to find it now that there is a bunch of chatter about it.

Ive never found it either. And there are always comments saying “it’s easy to find” which feeds into the notion that he’s not really anonymous. I don’t buy any of it.

I think the words going unsaid here are 'if you look in the right places', probably because the right places in this situation are not places respectable people want to associate with (for good reason).

Where is the "respectable" part of the internet? It's not like this guy is posting on silk road ...

Lol, fair point, although I was thinking in the other direction - I may not be able to define a respectable part of the internet, but I can definitely think of areas that are less reputable than others. The chans, etc. And it is pretty much exclusively in those places I have been able to find Scott's irl details.

Scott does not live in Michigan and has not for years.

In the US currently it appears that "cancel" equates to "criticize". There's no nuance possible, seems to me, so why bother?

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.

I think the Harper's letter[0] being viciously attacked on the left is what's hilarious. There are no conservatives remaining in the left media, so they have to find new enemies among each other. This is textbook witch hunt / McCarthyism stuff. I just keep eating popcorn and watching it unfold!

[0] https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/

I don't understand why it's necessary to bring this up or its relation at all with SSC or the New Yorker piece.

I am speculating on behalf of GP, but I think the reason it might be relevant is because the New Yorker has a far-left bias (https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart) and the motivation to go after SSC in the first place (for some on the left) seems to be that SSC's author and comments on SSC were willing to hold objective conversations about race and other touchy matters that the far left often dismisses as off limits (for instance using the label of "scientific racism"). This Harper's letter is in support of open debate, free inquiry, and free thought, and therefore it is in effect in support of SSC.

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...).