News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Still alive by legerdemain on Thursday January 21, 2021 @07:05PM (#25866477)
No, I presciently scrolled through the essay to find this particular passage, so I could copy-paste it here, and didn't read any of the essay leading up to this passage or anything after that point. My reaction is an unmitigated hot take that I have taken zero time to consider.

Is that the theory you were trying to validate with your question?

Re:Still alive by emtel on Thursday January 21, 2021 @09:34PM (#25867597)
No, I was actually really trying to figure out why you didn't mention the rest of the paragraph. It seemed like a good answer to your question. If you didn't think it was a good answer, it would have been helpful to know why you thought it fell short.
Re:Still alive by civilized on Friday January 22, 2021 @04:37AM (#25870041)
People are just really confused why you isolated that passage for criticism, when it is embedded within a long paragraph that makes it abundantly clear that Scott isn't saying remotely what you seem to think he's saying. He's not denying that he has a perceptible race or a gender. He's saying that knowledge of the therapist can be a distraction, and therapists generally see it as a duty to minimize such distractions, which makes fame an obstacle to his professional effectiveness.