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.