If your argument is that he had no choice in the matter then I'm not really arguing with you because in my world people can make choices of their own free will. To assume otherwise is a slippery slope and so I'm not interested in making that argument. If you have compelling evidence that Scott had no choice in deleting his blog then present it and we can argue about it.
Actions have consequences. The kind of community SSC fostered was not able to stand up to scrutiny even though its members pride themselves on reasoned and rational argumentation and scrutiny. When push came to shove they did not uphold and stand up for their own principles, instead they adopted the same tactics that their detractors use (innuendo and vague insinuations of great moral crimes) to defend themselves. You can look at the Twitter threads where people actually "doxxed" the journalist and his interactions and as the kids say "dragged" him on Twitter. It was all very ugly. No sane person would want to associate themselves with that kind of behavior.
Here is an actual trail of evidence for one of the members of the tech community actively harassing a reporter: https://mobile.twitter.com/search?q=from%3Abalajis%20Taylor&....
I have no opinions on the editors or journalists at NYT or any other news publication. I have no reason to believe they're the enemy and yet SSC and its members seem to think so. I find such opinions and the people that hold them confused and irrational (the opposite of certain, reasoned, and rational).
You're using the words "choice" and "voluntary" in a very pedantic way.
If someone puts a knife to your throat and demands the contents of your wallet under threat of being killed, you're also handing over the contents of your wallet out of your own free will. You chose to give up your property. You could have chosen to refuse and suffer the consequences. Your decision to give up your property was voluntary, in the sense that you could have chosen otherwise. This isn't technically wrong, but it also isn't what how the overwhelming majority of people use the word "voluntary".
When people talk about being forced to do something, they're talking about being pressured into taking a certain action due to the necessity of avoiding some consequence if they don't. In this case, Scott was being threatened with the consequence of having his identity revealed to a much broader audience with the probably consequence of adversely affecting his career and his patients. Yes, he chose to delete his blog. He could have left it up and lived with the adverse consequences to his livelihood. But this decision was made due to the threat of these consequences - it was not voluntary.
> Here is an actual trail of evidence for one of the members of the tech community actively harassing a reporter
This person isn't talking about either Cade Metz (the New York Times journalist that was writing about SSC), nor Pui-Wing Tam. The mention of Slate Star Codex comes at the end of this thread. How does this connect, in any way, to Scott's blog post? Furthermore, do you realize how absurd it is to form an opinion of an entire community of thousands if not tens of thousands of people based on the actions of a single person?
Furthermore, how is this harassment? This person is criticizing a journalist on false claims, and calling them a sociopath. You seem to be under the impression that the simple act of saying unfavorable things about someone is harassment. It isn't. If calling someone a liar and a sociopath is harassment, then a lot of people harassing a certain national leader on a regular basis (and rightly so, IMO. The point is to demonstrate that calling someone a liar and a sociopath isn't harassment).
Calling someone a sociopath is indeed harassment if you have no compelling evidence to prove your point. Because if you claim someone is a sociopath without providing compelling evidence then you're arguing in bad faith which is a characteristic of sociopathic people.
I don't know who Taylor is but I can tell that she's not a sociopath but the person harassing her on the other hand has certain sociopathic characteristics.
But this is irrelevant. Calling someone a sociopath regardless of whether or not you have evidence isn't harassment. You realize that harassment is a crime, right? It's honestly quite astounding that you believe restrictions on speech are this tight. Being offended or insulted does not make speech harassment. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that banning speech on the basis of offensiveness is not allowed [1]. Speech protections go even further than that - even burning a cross and calling for "revengeance" against minorities is protected [2]. No, Balaji's Tweets aren't harassment. They aren't even near it.
Harassment laws almost always revolve around non-consensual speech (e.g. someone following you or otherwise forcing you to be exposed to their speech), or a captive audience (a boss saying something to an employee. The employee is a captive audience, they can't avoid their boss without losing their job). Harassment is about keeping people from having to listen to speech that they do not consent to receiving. Harassment laws are not about preventing people from saying offensive things about other people. Taylor isn't a captive audience - if she does not consent to seeing Balaji's Tweets she can easily block him.
And on a side note: using your own expansive definition of harassment, aren't you now harassing Balaji by calling him a sociopath or saying he has "sociopathic tendencies"? If not why is it okay for your to call someone a sociopath, but harassment for him to call Taylor a sociopath?
I have never argued for any restrictions on free speech and yet you continue to say that I have. Why is this confusing for you? I have continued to present evidence for why I think what I think and yet all I hear back is my definitions are wrong and pedantic. What in your opinion is not pedantic and correct? Can you provide the definitions so we can have a fruitful argument instead of going around in circles about what words means and how they can be associated with actions that can cause harm.
I also never called anyone a sociopath. I presented evidence for what I consider to be harassment and sociopathic actions. Here is my exact quote
> Calling someone a sociopath is indeed harassment if you have no compelling evidence to prove your point. Because if you claim someone is a sociopath without providing compelling evidence then you're arguing in bad faith which is a characteristic of sociopathic people.
I don't know who Balaji is or what he does. I'm just inferring his characteristics from his obsession with Taylor and his constant combative language about the free press and journalists (specifically targeting Taylor with his tweets and calls to action to harass her along with calling her a sociopath without compelling evidence). Balaji is using exactly the same tactics Trump uses to discredit his detractors.
I will again re-iterate what I said. This is getting tiresome. If you have an actual argument against anything that I have said then my email is in my profile. I will no longer respond to more replies to my posts in this thread.
You have repeatedly said that Balaji's actions are harassment. Again, harassment is illegal. Why is this confusing for you? When you say that somebody is harassing someone, you're saying that their actions are illegal and it's the government's responsibility to put a stop to it. For the third time harassment is illegal.
Do you believe Balaji's Tweet are illegal? If not then you agree with me: he is not harassing people. Is he being a jackass? Sure. Is this harassment? No.
> I'm just inferring his characteristics from his obsession with Taylor and his constant combative language about free press and journalists.
Right. And Balaji is inferring Taylor's status as a sociopath given her actions. But apparently this isn't harassment when you do it, but it is harassment when other people do the same.
That's the definition of harassment from wikipedia and it characterizes the actions from many people in the tech community. I showed an example of such from Balaji against Taylor. In fact, he goes further into bullying territory because his actions are repetitive and consistently of sinister nature of painting the free press in broad and negative brushstrokes. He's not just bullying and harassing a specific member of the free press but he does so more generally and demeans the entire profession. That's what I call harassment. I don't care about legality. I care about decent behavior. And Balaji is not acting as a decent person so I'm using his actions as evidence of what I mean by harassment and indecent.
And again, you've still neglected to establish any sort of link between Baiaji and Scott's post. Baiaji didn't even mention Metz or the editor of the technology section. He didn't post about the New York Times' threat to dox Scott until after he posted about Taylor. So establishing any sort of causal link bewteen Scott's post and Baiaji's behavior.
To top it all off, I can't help but appreciate the fact that you're replicating the same behavior for which you are criticizing Baiaji here:
> In fact, he goes further into bullying territory because his actions are repetitive and consistently of sinister nature of painting the free press in broad and negative brushstrokes. He's not just bullying and harassing a specific member of the free press but he does so more generally and demeans the entire profession.
Yet in your post you characterize many people in the tech industry as harassers:
> That's the definition of harassment from wikipedia and it characterizes the actions from many people in the tech community.
So it's bullying when Baiaji paints a group of people in broad and negative brushstrokes. Yet you feel it's appropriate to write that the definition of harassment characterizes the actions of many people in tech.
I've repeatedly told you to write an argument in a longer format if you have any actual points to make but you continue responding to the thread even when I've repeatedly said I'm no longer interested in this discussion because it is tiresome to go around in circles.
* Originally you claimed that Scott was being uncivil by directing people to share their feedback on the situation with the New York Times designated feedback contact. Despite the fact that the explicitly directed potential commenters to be civil.
* I asked how this could possibly be uncivil when Scott explicitly tells commenters to be civil, to which you responded that you "have already said several times what was uncivil about it" (you haven't, or maybe it was in the posts that you edited to '-'). You also linked to this twitter post [1] as "actual evidence on twitter of actual coordination among its members for a harassment campaign" despite there being nothing at all indicating the existence of a harassment campaign.
* You then wrote that a civil phrasing would have been for Scott to say that his deletion of the blog was voluntary. I point out that this isn't a rephrasing of the original message, it's a completely different message and one that doesn't capture the fact that the deletion of the blog wasn't voluntary.
* You then claim that it was voluntary, because Scott could have just lived with the negative consequences of leaving it up. I then point out that doing something out of fear of consequences is what it means for something to be involuntary. You also then link to this twitter post [2] as evidence of "one of the members of the tech community actively harassing a reporter". But this tweet doesn't even mention Cade Metz or Pui-Wing Tam. And it doesn't even mention Scott until after the supposedly harassing tweets are made.
How is explicitly telling a community to be civil indicative of incivility? Nothing in your first twitter link even so much as mentions harassment yet you claim it's "actual evidence on twitter of actual coordination among its members for a harassment campaign". How do you convince yourself that taking action under the threat of doxxing and negative impact on your career and patients is voluntary? How is Balaji's tweets supposed to support the claim that Scott is being uncivil - especially when he only mentions Scott after the "harassing" tweets?
Each of your comments gets further from the original claim, and more and more outlandish.
1 https://mobile.twitter.com/eigenrobot/status/128066344682499...
2. https://mobile.twitter.com/search?q=from%3Abalajis%20Taylor&...
I have no fear of public scrutiny. My actions have clearly demonstrated that because I have engaged everyone that has contacted me in good faith but I have not received the same treatment so I'm getting tired of re-iterating my points. If you think it's a trick then you can contact me on keybase and I will happily sign any statement that you want attributed to me and that I think is a fair assessment. If you don't think cryptographic proof is sufficient then we have nothing to argue about.
I stand by all my original claims. If you have specific arguments then quote me, and state your argument. I'm not looking for out of context quotes and mis-characterizations. If you want to continue arguing then provide actual quotes, state what you think I said and why, and make a counter-point for why you think my claim is incorrect with compelling evidence. You can contact me on keybase and cross-post our conversation on whatever public forum you want.
Perhaps this was the case, but you seem to have edited many parent comments in this chain with a '-'. Unless the flagging behavior has changed without my knowing. My understanding is that flagging removes the comment from users without showdead enabled, but does not edit the comment.
> If I was a psychologist who read the comments of my posts I would have realize that subtle suggestions can be blown out of proportions and I would be very careful with what words I was using to express my intent.
> A civil phrasing would have been, "I'm making this decision of my own volition but I personally plan to work out a peaceful solution for all parties involved". That would have been civil. Asking anyone to act on your behalf by giving feedback to a 3rd party when it's obvious the intent is negative is not civil. It is sinister.
He explicitly tells people to be police, to not be a jerk, and to be mindful that they are representing the SSC community. How is this failing to express his intent that anyone commenting on his behalf to be civil? And how on Earth is it "obvious the intent is negative is not civil" when he explicitly tells any potential commenters to be civil?
Your suggestion that Scott instead write, "I'm making this decision of my own volition but I personally plan to work out a peaceful solution for all parties involved" is not a rephrasing. It's a completely different message. He is not making this decision on his own volition, he was prompted to delete the blog due to the actions of another person. Your suggested phrasing not only completely omits this fact, but says the complete opposite.