The actually not even really a hatchet job NYT piece on SlateScott that mostly just called him a weird little guy has nonetheless created a festering psychic wound that oozes to this day. Here manifests as an interview with the author on LW. See also: discussion on reddit.
My favorite section, talking about how people are mad that be brought up Scott’s notorious race stuff™️:
CM: That’s great. That’s a valid position. There are other valid positions where people say, we need to not go so close to that, because it’s dangerous and there’s a slippery slope. The irony of this whole situation is that some people who feel that I should not have gone there, who think I should not explore the length and breadth of that situation, are the people who think you should always go there.
Wait. Why the fuck is that weirdo talking to Cade Metz? What the hell is going on here!?!
I’d really like to know the back story on this interview too. I realize weirdness isn’t exactly distinctive when it comes to rationalists, but Zack is in a league of his own.
Unbelievable kill shot, how the fuck did Davis leave it on this? Some secret agenda to hand Metz a fuckin’ victory wreath? Does he think this makes Metz look bad?
I get that out front Davis’s whole thing is total transparency, but if that’s really all that’s going on here, how did it not end on something utterly banal? How is this orbital homerun the end of the conversation?
A rat scoring an own goal shouldn’t be surprising, and a rat, especially ZMD, not understanding how to edit should also not be surprising.
loved how Metz is literally just explaining his job in terms that make obvious sense, and the commenters go off to construct a stupendous conspiracy theory
also, like. we have the email where Scott confesses that he started SSC to promote reactionary ideas and race science. Zack has even posted about said email.
That being said, Metz is just wrong about journalism here:
> “And whatever people think, my job at the Times is to give everyone their due, and to give everyone’s point of view a forum and help them get that point of view into any given story”
The job of the NYT is not even remotely to give every POV a forum, unless he is very clumsily saying “my job is to request comment from the subject of an article.”
minor point of order (and a little riff): they are talking about their job at the Times, which might be a whole other kettle of fish going by their recent track record
I feel like “giving everyone their due” is one thing, as long as it’s tempered by the recognition that not every perspective is due equal respect, or that certain perspectives are due a large disclaimer about how factual consensus completely disagrees.