C'mon, the New Yorker has been unusually good on this topic, even skewering a few sacred cows here and there: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/05/30/the-new-activi...

Perhaps, but can we honestly believe that if Lewis-Kraus had omitted the extra verbose reassurances that Scott isn't a Trump supporter and within hours of the article's publication there were calls for the New Yorker to fire him, that the New Yorker's editors would defend the more nuanced treatment?

Seemingly, Lewis-Kraus does not believe this. I wonder if the extra verbiage was his own decision or the result of editorial feedback.

I guess you can believe whatever you want, but it's equally possible that the author is trying to (accurately) emphasize to his readership that Scott Alexander isn't a member of the alt-right/scientific racism segment of the self-proclaimed Rationalist community.

Yes, and I hope that is the correct explanation. But I think we should be wary of the tremendous pressure that publications face to lean away from nuance and anything that requires careful reading and to rely on broad and pat generalizations.

In my view, the New Yorker is an incredible publication that typically features writing that is superb and also well edited (if edited at all). So that's why this one stood out.

Maybe the issue is that so many people are quick to label anything that sounds like rationalism as alt-right.

I read the thing James Damore wrote and the problem was not the content he claimed was factual, it was the tone. He could have made the same point without sounding like he was on a "side" in an ongoing battle.

The elderly Richard Dawkins gets into political sides taking, as does Sam Harris. Both do little to hide their islamophobia. This appeals to those who were looking for scientific justifications of their beliefs, but also alienates anyone who wanted dispassionate science.

> Maybe the issue is that so many people are quick to label anything that sounds like rationalism as alt-right.

That is an issue, but I'll hope it's uncontroversial to point out that people like, say Curtis Yarvin, who are closely associated with both the alt-right and rationalist movements. There is in fact some significant overlap between those communities.

I'm not all that familiar with Yarvin. Could you contextualize how he fits into the broader rationalist movement? I want to understand how someone with such strongly authoritarian beliefs finds common ground with rationalists.

He doesn't, when you really get into it. But the rationalist movement is generally willing to engage neutrally with new and interesting ideas, and there's no reason why neo-reaction would be an exception.