>I think I originally started reading his stuff because he had informed and humorous takedowns of some extremist libertarian/fascist ideas like neoreaction and dark enlightenment, but I guess to know that much about the topics probably is a reflection of the circles he's moving in.

So you read and liked stuff that confirmed your likely ideological priors, but you disliked stuff that questioned them.

Do you actually expect a less-partial observer to agree that the fault here is with Scott rather than you?