> I insulted the New Yorker article and reporter, but I accompanied that with an argument for why they deserved it

This. It’s a really easy trap to fall into online, but, the whole idea of someone deserving an insult is, 99.9% of the time, toxic.

What's your opinion of your grandparent post's description of my comment as "grandiose", "strident", and "hyperbolic"? Are you saying those are fine (without explanation), but "ugly", "disingenuous", and "stupid" (with explanation) aren't?

Are you sure that you're not focusing on language to avoid engaging with an argument that would lead you to a conclusion that you find undesirable (i.e., that the NYT intended harm to Alexander, and the New Yorker stepped in to excuse their actions)? That's another easy trap to fall into online.

I actually agree with the grandparent post, and, I'd originally tried to explain why I thought your previous comment was kinda grandiose, but I kept writing snarky things so ultimately decided to pivot ; ).

And, I don't think I'm doing that other thing you're saying but am all ears if you feel that's the case.

I actually agree that my original post was needlessly snarky (and I'm disappointed but not surprised that it got far more engagement than the more nuanced stuff I usually write). I believe that post clearly advanced an argument, though, and that the argument is sound. Leaving aside my language, do you think Alexander actually intended to conceal something from the NYT reporter by deleting his blog (while mirrors remain widely available)? If so, why did he choose such a spectacularly ineffective tactic? I think the deletion was just an (apparently successful) publicity stunt, and that suggesting that he was trying to conceal something in doing so is a smear. It seems like you disagree, but why?

And what do you think is grandiose? I think there's a decent chance that Alexander would have been forced out of his chosen career if the article ran, and that he might be yet. Do you doubt this? That seems like a pretty significant life event for anyone, an odd thing to minimize unless you're indifferent to harm to him.

Finally, what do you agree with in pvg's post? I don't see any argument there myself, just a lot of words with negative connotations.

Thanks for the response man - appreciate it.

To be honest, with regards to the ultimate intention of the New Yorker article, I don’t know. And with regards to your question, I ultimately don’t know what Alexander intended.

I think that the domain of plausible answers to the questions you raise is pretty big and that the article doesn’t really provide enough information to give definitive answers.

We obviously each had different overall impressions of the New Yorker article and it’s authors intent.

With regards to grandiosity, well, the way grandiosity was talked about in the article and the comment was a combination of “beleaguered” and “potent”, I think.

I may have jumped the gun , but to me your comment read as though you felt a particular group that you had some degree of sympathy with was being deliberately targeted by The NY Times. Thus - beleaguered.

At the same time, that particular comment also had a lot of judgements on various things and on various people’s intentions. Judgements which to me traveled a very narrow chain of logic. Lots of either/or black and white, basically. Which I do too at times. But - Thus - potent.

Hope that’s useful information and not crossing a line to say.

Also obviously I don’t believe that The NY Times is specifically targeting anyone or a group in that way. Which isn’t to say they haven’t. And, I could be wrong. My general take is that the motivations of an org like The NY Times are more multifaceted and nuanced than how they’ve mostly been discussed in this comment thread. Same with the New Yorker

Which isn’t to say I haven’t felt a lot of anger towards their reporting at times.

And, I enjoy both those publications FWIW.

Thanks, and I also routinely read both the NYT and the New Yorker. I don't mean to suggest that most or all of their reporters want to use the tools of their trade to harm perceived opponents, just that some non-negligible subset do (as is inevitable in a large group), and their managers seem disinclined to hold them back (which seems new and scary to me). The personal consequences if you meet such a reporter seem potentially disastrous enough (what does a trained psychiatrist do with his life if he can no longer practice?) to be worth a strong warning. Maybe you think it's hyperbolic; but Alexander probably now wishes that someone had given him that warning before he started blogging.

I do think there's an ideological bias to whom an NYT reporter is likely to treat favorably or unfavorably. In this thread and elsewhere, people listed comparably semi-anonymous figures that the NYT declined to name that one might, in the usual oversimplified binary view, described as left-leaning. The world isn't perfectly orderly, and maybe they just got lucky and Alexander got unlucky. I see moderately strong evidence that's not the case, though.

But I'm more concerned that this is happening than to whom. I was aware that Alexander's blog existed before these events, but I hadn't read it much, and I had no particularly favorable or unfavorable impression. I wrote my comment not out of sympathy for Alexander's views, but out of concern that reporters from mainstream outlets now seem happy to bring about or abet actions that are likely to cause people serious and unfair ("Alexander deserved to get fired for what he wrote, so good" is a perfectly consistent and honest position, but I'm actually kind of surprised that no one said that here) harm. I think Marxists are dangerously wrong, but I don't think they should be run out of their unrelated jobs for that reason.

What Alexander feared the NYT would do to him seems to me more polished and subtler than a Project Veritas article on Breitbart, but basically in the same spirit. I do think it's to the NYT's credit that (so far) they dropped the piece, and to the New Yorker's that their piece didn't use Alexander's real name--no one doubts that Breitbart would have ploughed ahead. I'm disturbed that it got that far, though.

It just seems like a lot of conclusions to draw around an article that hasn't been released yet and which no one has read.

Plus, what if the New Yorker article got something wrong (not necessarily thru negligence)?

Or what if the NY Times article changes between now and its publication (if it's published)?

What if Alexander misunderstood something? Or, what if there are circumstances which people have not chosen to publicly share for whatever reason?

I appreciate you writing back. At the end of the day, it just seems like this whole topic struck an emotional chord with a lot of people for reasons I don't understand, or, don't agree with.

To be fair, I've definitely felt an emotional response. There's a lot of fear going around in the world right now, and understandably so.

I also appreciate the response, and I certainly agree that no one except the NYT reporter knew what would be published (and not even they knew what the ultimate consequences would be for Alexander). But since the only way for Alexander to know for sure would have been for him to wait and see if he gets fired, I can't blame him for acting speculatively.

Maybe people respond in proportion to their self-assessed risk that they themselves would end up in Alexander's predicament? That probably explains some of the left/right split on this and similar topics. I just can't help thinking that those with views broadly similar to an average NYT reporter's are underestimating that personal risk, given that: (a) the boundaries of acceptable thought may change quickly and unpredictably; and (b) a much greater fraction of their personal and professional network is likely to come along with the mob, increasing the risk that public censure has consequences to their daily life. "Cancel culture" poses much less risk to a Breitbart reporter (who's already beyond the pale) than to a broadly liberal writer who misses or disregards the latest change in that boundary.

FWIW I think you’re making a lot of assumptions.

I mean 'doxxing', 'mob', 'harm', 'cheerful indifference'. None of this has happened. All of it is based on the framing Alexander has given it - which is neither corroborated nor is he a disinterested party. It very much smacks of grandiosity and sense of grievance.

Sorry, in what sense didn't the NYT propose to "doxx" Alexander? As far as I can tell, everyone involved agrees that the NYT intended to publish his real name. Do you have evidence to the contrary? Or are you trying to draw a distinction between publishing his real name and publishing other identifying details like his address or phone number? But the word "doxxing" is widely used for both, and in this case it's clearly the former that would cause most of the harm.

Or are you doubting that the doxxing would have harmed him? A lot of his phrasing is creepy even to me--the word "like" goes poorly with "eugenics", regardless of one's views on anything. I haven't read his blog extensively, but from the full context of what I've seen I'd attribute that to autistic-style disregard for social conventions rather than any intent to cause harm; but I do believe an article quoting selectively from his writing and including his real name had a decent chance of making it impossible for him to continue in his present career. A Mexican-American utility worker just lost his job for resting his hand out the window of his van in a shape that the Twitter mob thought implied white supremacy. Would the sins they perceive in Alexander not be much, much worse?

Or are you just pointing out that thanks to Alexander's stunt, the NYT seems to have held off (for now)? But unless you're saying that the NYT was never actually going to publish his real name (which I see no reason to believe) or that threats of harm are fine until you act (which would make life easier for extortionists, but which I don't believe is a serious argument), I'm not sure how that's relevant.

Or is it just that you want to see him harmed for the views he expressed, but you consider yourself too nice a person to actually say that? "Alexander wrote stuff under a pseudonym that's so bad he should be forced to abandon his career as a psychiatrist, and if the NYT can make it happen then I'll be glad" is at least a consistent and honest position; so if that's what you think, why not say it?

I don't think we need to parse the precise meaning of 'doxx' or even agree on whether it would be ethical or not for the NYT to publish his name. The only thing that has happened to so far is an NYT writer started writing a piece on SSC and called some people.

This has caused Scott Alexander to faint on the couch and the response that warrants is probably smelling salts, not the mobilization of all legions west of Cappadocia. The only thing we have so far is his side of the story, his prone frame on the couch and his call for the mobilization of all legions west of Cappadocia.

From your implication that this is all an overreaction, it seems like you believe there's no reason to be concerned that Alexander might be forced out of his profession, even if the NYT did run the piece with his full name as they'd proposed (but haven't yet).

Is this because you think it's unlikely that would happen even if the piece did run? If so, then I gave the reasons in my previous post why I disagree--so we have a simple disagreement about a prediction for the future, and we could each give our reasons why we expected our respective outcomes. Why didn't you engage with any of those arguments?

Or is it just because you're indifferent to whether he loses his career, or indeed might be glad to see it happen? That seems most consistent to me with your statements so far--but would you feel the same if the person staring down the Twitter mob were your ideological ally? You yourself? If we normalize this behavior, then what makes you think that it won't be someone you care about next?

I don't have much interest in re-litigating the hypothetical outcomes via the Socratic Pinniped Textwall Method. I think my comment was quite straightforward - nothing happened and then a very mildly critical meta-article appeared in the New Yorker. Your response starts with hyperbole and ends with what is frankly a conspiracy theory about how journalism works. Which is the sort of thing that is gently ribbed in the article itself, completing the circle!

Have you ever considered the possibility that you're mistaken? I try to myself, which is why I want to discuss with people who hold opinions other than mine, in order to understand why they do and whether I should change my view. You've communicated clearly that you disagree with me, but I'm not sure what else I could get from your comments.

Is there any substantive argument that you'd be willing to engage with? I'm not sure why you keep responding if not. You can't actually believe that nothing happened here, unless you believe that nothing happened in the Cuban Missile Crisis because the missiles never flew.

Have you tried to consider the possibility that you're mistake on this forum, or just other ones? Can you point to an exchange here where that's happened? The search bar at the bottom of the page could help, if none come to mind.

I'm always curious about the expectations people when they write things like "have you ever considered the possibility that you're mistaken". It seems totally ineffective as a rhetorical move, but I wonder if might have some slim chance of being productive if accompanied by a show of good faith. Like, for instance, any evidence whatsoever that the person saying it had ever been inclined to concede anything on the forum.

I don't usually comment on political topics like this one, but here's a thread where someone corrected my oversimplified view of the Fed's current bond market interventions. It took several levels of replies for me to understand what they meant, and I later corrected someone else who continued to argue for my initial (and misleading) view:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23421917

Close enough? Or in a different sub-thread here (that the mods seem to have detached), another poster and I probably still disagree on the original question, but we did manage a respectful discussion in which we agreed on other related points:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23783613

I didn't mean it as a rhetorical device--I'm genuinely curious, how someone came to be so sure that I'm wrong that it's not even worth explaining why. There's very few things I'm that sure of.

It's easy to reach certainty that the conversation you're engaged in has no hope of becoming productive, far easier than reaching any kind of (ugh) "epistemic" certainty. It's helpful to recognize that; otherwise, you're at risk of being the annoying dude in the meme sitting behind a card table on a college quad, "change my mind".

I'm afraid that you're probably right. So what should I have done differently? What could have changed pvg's mind, or at least generated something like a respectful and substantive discussion in which they explained the reasons for their differing views (which you'll see that I did manage with several other posters who disagree with me in this thread)?

A snarky original post like the one I wrote here starts from a negative interaction with someone who disagrees, which I agree is bad. You'll find mostly more nuanced comments in my history, including those about semi-political topics like the coronavirus; but those mostly get no replies at all.

Sometimes it's fine just to give up on a thread. Cards->table, I can't tell you what would change 'pvg's mind, because I agree with him.