This is how Scott writes when he's describing something he disagrees with but doesn't want to get into just now because he's making a point about something else.

It's tacit disapproval, but not quite strong enough that people will go off on a tangent about it in the comments (though they still do).

Use your reading. In the first part of the post, he uses the same format for successive paragraphs. They're all examples of individuals who wrote in support who he is mildly baffled or exasperated by. The example prior that was on the four NYT journalists who all said conflicting things about the policy, but they did legitimately want to help, just not in a helpful way. Same with this individual, he legitimately wanted to help, but in a baffling and somewhat scary way. The "I am humbled by their support" kind of seals the deal on the irony. At the end of the post, he uses the same repetition, but for individuals or groups he is legitimately thanking.

This kind of interpretation is why we can't have nice things. Everything you read these days has to beat you over the head with their point, or caveat everything in a sad and painful way. It's the death of joy and play in writing and reading. I'm glad people like Scott can write so boldly, even fully knowing, as I'm sure he does, that the joy and play will be read in the harshest light. And I mourn for all the joy and play I'll never read because people are rightfully afraid of being miscast and mischaracterized.

Thanks. I was about to try to make a similar point, but couldn't quite find the words and saw this when I refreshed.

> Because there is a lot of stuff he seems to be quite fine with that most people assume he would disapprove of because it is truly awful.

Give me an example, and I can probably find somewhere he's explicitly, unabashedly condemned it, and you probably can't find somewhere he's condoned it. Most of the places I've found myself in disagreement¹ with Scott Alexander, it's turned out that I was the one who hadn't thought through the moral implications of the thing I condoned.

¹: Excluding philosophical disagreement along the lines of “what should we care about?” – what would be religious disagreement were he religious, which most people in my culture don't consider a sign of evil.

I notice you didn't carve out an unconditional condemnation of violence in your comment here. It's implied.

Can we stop being so laborious?