Several Times staffers pushed back, noting that the paper was not “doxxing” Alexander, as that term is widely used to describe situations where the goal of revealing a person’s identity is specifically to encourage harassment.
He's a moderate lefty who published massive effortposts that criticise mainstream feminists in a way that can get a lot of moderates on board. That's a lot more threatening than an extremist sperg who talks about how gynocentrism means men are the truly oppressed gender.
I hate newspapers so much. I hate any publication that tells me "Trump did xyz. Here is why you should feel angry."
While, yes, I probably don't like that Trump did xyz and it probably would make me a bit angry I really, really, really, don't fucking like being told what to think. It is the height of liberal elitism to tell people how to feel. God, I think I am starting to hate leftoids as much as I hate rightoids. Both are just reaching unprecedented levels of smugness and stupidity that is just not tolerable for a normal person.
there was never any problem with the golden shower, its the fact that it was a golden shower from a russian prostitute, say what you want about stormy daniels but she isnt a bioweapon.
That's what redpilled me into researching trump and now supporting him. If they hadn't tried telling me I was an awful person I might have not bothered to do any research
I'm so sorry your IQ is that low. Do you need help eating? I've been thinking about volunteering with special needs children. Would be nice to help out a Dramatard.
Trump has incredibly poor foreign policy skills and is incredibly bad at picking advisors. I don’t need to be led to believe anything when he does something as rslurred as meeting with Kim jung un or trying to meet with the taliban at camp David.
Trump got NK to the table - something that no other president has done.
Trump got the Taliban to the table - something that no other nation has done.
With the Taliban attacks continued, Trump now has the ammunition to say, "See? They aren't willing to accept peace. We tried." and can set the groundwork for future presidents to expand anti-terrorism operations with the backing of their not wanting peace. This is a textbook 3D chess move: you get your enemy to fuck up when you're trying to be the good guy.
Then again, I don't expect someone whose political expertise comes from /r/drama and hating Trump to have much in the way of how any politics works.
And accomplished what? Why do you think no president had invited either to the table? It accomplished nothing and made the United States look like fools.
I dunno, how about the fact that after months of increased pressure and North Korean bellicose rhetoric,. We sat down 3 times with the leader of a rogue state, got not deal done, and then had our president talking about his great personal
Relationship with rocket man on twitter? All the while making japan and South Korea extremely nervous and doing nothing for non-proliferation?
Why do you think that just because no one else had done something that it automatically makes it good? This is horrific logic.
And yes, he caused material harm to the United States position in Asia by even doing these talks.he weakened our alliances in the pacific while China is rising, and have legitimacy to a tin pot dictator.
This isn’t even including the fact that Donny is completely rslurred about NATO and would like us to pull out or lessen our commitment because apparently being the worlds hegemon isn’t good enough for a return on investment.
There is absolutely nowhere on Reddit (except maybe The Great Awakening) where stupider, sadder, scareder, or crazier comments consistently get upboats and support than this place you linked. You might think, Hey look! A place where women aren't all sucking tranny peen! Weird! But then you find out that they are scared of tranny peen, and believe that in a couple years, women who don't assimilate and get a peen themselves will be locked up in suspended cages, let down from their gibbets only to be repeatedly viciously raped and denied STEM jobs.
That place is like /r/drama if everyone here felt scared for their lives, and could only find possibly recourse in demanding mayocide and bussy. Swap our memes for 'white-female ethnosexstate now' and 'kill all men before they kill all women' and you have a pretty fair idea of their topics.
And that's where it gets interesting: they're unironically probussycide, unironically antifemayocide. Truly, /r/drama has its antithesis.
NYT has been oozing drama lately, and they just can't seem to keep it internal. There was also that massive "no u" callout article in WaPo a month or so ago.
I'm still confused about why Scott Alexander was so shocked by this. You can't write a blog popular enough for you to effectively become a public figure then act shocked when a paper reports on you like a public figure.
For all the kicking and screaming "grey tribe" rationalists make about how the left and right secretly don't value free speech, they sure seem to not value it when it's their guy in the crosshairs. Twitter delenda est and all that but acting like media shouldn't be reporting on a public figure with his real name is the peak of the idiocy stemming from this.
Would it be okay for me to dox you? After all you are posting on a public forum, does this mean you are a public figure? Or do you apply different standards to your own postings on the internet
Are you actually so retarded that you can't tell the difference between a rando on r/drama and a blogger with millions of page views that had famous PhD's referring to him as a peer?
NYT respected the pseudonymity of Virgil Texas and Banksy, among others. The grey tribe anger here arises from the suspicion that this was not, in fact, a puff piece, but rather designed to dox and stigmatize Alexander for allowing crimethinkers to visit his comment section. He was subject to a pretty aggressive doxing and harassment campaign by AHS types last year on the same topic (they flooded his medical practice with threatening phone calls, etc). IMO it's completely consistent to (i) stick up for free speech and (ii) choose not to give money or clicks to shitlib media outlets that conspire to retaliate against people for totally reasonable, blue-tribe-disfavored speech.
If Alexander had prefaced his plea for pseudonymity with "As a woman of color...", they would have honored it in a second.
Oh I agree that its hypocritical bullshit. But NYT is still within the free speech rights that rationalists claim to love. Good on him for weaponizing it as a movement by shutting off the blog, but acting like this is out of left field or particularly surprising is either a Straussian sympathy play or just him being delusional.
You can be within free speech rights and have people pissed at you for it. This isn't the government or a major corporation punishing someone for speech. This is individual yelling a a company that they're shitty. There really isn't a conflict.
For sure, but there's a lot of talk on the rationalist subs about the need for pro-privacy regulation. Which, in the context of a public figure like Scott, amounts to sour grapes that this time free speech meant a disruption to one of their own instead of the other culture war factions they act like they're above.
Don't get me wrong some privacy laws would be great. But I'd stop short at saying the media shouldn't be able name a particularly influential public person even if I don't like it and the NYT is being transparently hypocritical.
Journalistic standards and the regulatory laws are not the same thing. People are angry because the NYT is doxing the dude because of his opinions despite him explicitly stating he doesn't want to be doxed.
I understand that, are you capable of reading comorehension? I'm saying that there is literal, 100% serious discussion about trying to create a "I want to be private no matter how influential I am" 1A exception going on in rationalist forums. I agree that the NYT is being hypocritical and mean-spirited, I don't agree that they are actually making some inherent violation to journalistic ethics. Scott is a public figure and needs to put on big boy pants and own up to the fact he's going to be reported on like one.
Why are you confused when he explained the root cause of his annoyance?
I want to make it clear that I’m not saying I believe I’m above news coverage, or that people shouldn’t be allowed to express their opinion of my blog. If someone wants to write a hit piece about me, whatever, that’s life. If someone thinks I am so egregious that I don’t deserve the mask of anonymity, then I guess they have to name me, the same way they name criminals and terrorists. This wasn’t that. By all indications, this was just going to be a nice piece saying I got some things about coronavirus right early on. Getting punished for my crimes would at least be predictable, but I am not willing to be punished for my virtues.
No I understand why he feels frustrated, just surprised that he didn't expect this outcome. A random journo at NYT probably didn't perceive a puff piece about how right Scott usually is as threatening, especially when he's not an Epic Anti-Capitalist Freedom Fighter™® or somebody that Identity Politics deems needs special protection like Banksy or the Chapo hosts. Really a dumbass move from somebody who is usually in tune with the culture war shit.
Also the woe-is-me shit is dumb. Being named by the media does not equate to them considering you a criminal or terrorist. Scott can seethe harder as far as I'm concerned.
66 comments
7 Corporal-Hicks 2020-06-26
What an absolute fucking cop out
4 WigglingWeiner99 2020-06-26
It's also a lie. Doxxing is revealing an otherwise anonymous internet user's personal information. That's it. It doesn't have to be "harassing."
1 [deleted] 2020-06-26
[removed]
7 Nergaal 2020-06-26
Is that based asian femoid that tweeted "#cancelwhitepeople" still there?
2 zapiks44 2020-06-26
No, she left last year.
4 radical__centrism 2020-06-26
And isn't this guy just very very mildly problematic, in a 'tistic libertarian/classical liberal way? They out here going after everybody.
2 gurthanix 2020-06-26
He's a moderate lefty who published massive effortposts that criticise mainstream feminists in a way that can get a lot of moderates on board. That's a lot more threatening than an extremist sperg who talks about how gynocentrism means men are the truly oppressed gender.
1 SAC-Lawn_Gnome 2020-06-26
We live in a Necromatriarchy
2 MinerHornet 2020-06-26
I hate newspapers so much. I hate any publication that tells me "Trump did xyz. Here is why you should feel angry."
While, yes, I probably don't like that Trump did xyz and it probably would make me a bit angry I really, really, really, don't fucking like being told what to think. It is the height of liberal elitism to tell people how to feel. God, I think I am starting to hate leftoids as much as I hate rightoids. Both are just reaching unprecedented levels of smugness and stupidity that is just not tolerable for a normal person.
8 somestupidname1 2020-06-26
You and me both, brother. Their behaviors are near identical, but they're just screeching about different things.
1 Actual_Justice 2020-06-26
Have you compared the Evangelicals of old to Modern SJWs? A lot of their targets are the same.
1 DaYooper 2020-06-26
By the way check out Jo Jorgenson for president
0 allendrio 2020-06-26
Newspapers are undermining the judiciary with crony appointments and flouting of laws?
3 oss_spy 2020-06-26
Republicans actually fell for the line of Trump paying to pee on russian prostitutes?
1 allendrio 2020-06-26
there was never any problem with the golden shower, its the fact that it was a golden shower from a russian prostitute, say what you want about stormy daniels but she isnt a bioweapon.
1 oss_spy 2020-06-26
"My side is right"
"Here's something that your side got wrong"
"No, no, not that!"
1 [deleted] 2020-06-26
[removed]
6 artemis_m_oswald 2020-06-26
Insert "arrDrama was part of my shift rightwards" snappy quote
3 ponypopper 2020-06-26
based and xyz-affair pilled
3 d4ddyd64m4 2020-06-26
Yeah, nowadays its just so fucking in your face too. There are headlines literally going “Here’s why Biden good” and just spoonfeeding opinion
3 oss_spy 2020-06-26
That's what redpilled me into researching trump and now supporting him. If they hadn't tried telling me I was an awful person I might have not bothered to do any research
1 MinerHornet 2020-06-26
I'm so sorry your IQ is that low. Do you need help eating? I've been thinking about volunteering with special needs children. Would be nice to help out a Dramatard.
3 oss_spy 2020-06-26
Bernie won't win, sweaty.
1 MinerHornet 2020-06-26
lol you think I like Bernie.
1 oss_spy 2020-06-26
I don't care what you like, but I know how to appeal to /r/drama and get upvotes to fuel my need for approval
1 MinerHornet 2020-06-26
Respect. o7
1 istural 2020-06-26
Trump is a literal dipshit. Don’t let moronic leftists turn you into a daddy boy. You can hate both, I promise.
1 oss_spy 2020-06-26
I'm a left leaning republican because I have a brain and care about people. Trump isn't as bad as you've been mislead to believe.
1 istural 2020-06-26
Trump has incredibly poor foreign policy skills and is incredibly bad at picking advisors. I don’t need to be led to believe anything when he does something as rslurred as meeting with Kim jung un or trying to meet with the taliban at camp David.
1 oss_spy 2020-06-26
Trump got NK to the table - something that no other president has done.
Trump got the Taliban to the table - something that no other nation has done.
With the Taliban attacks continued, Trump now has the ammunition to say, "See? They aren't willing to accept peace. We tried." and can set the groundwork for future presidents to expand anti-terrorism operations with the backing of their not wanting peace. This is a textbook 3D chess move: you get your enemy to fuck up when you're trying to be the good guy.
Then again, I don't expect someone whose political expertise comes from /r/drama and hating Trump to have much in the way of how any politics works.
1 istural 2020-06-26
And accomplished what? Why do you think no president had invited either to the table? It accomplished nothing and made the United States look like fools.
1 oss_spy 2020-06-26
Okay, how specifically did it make the US look foolish? Remember, saying something isn't enough. And what did it "not" accomplish?
1 istural 2020-06-26
I dunno, how about the fact that after months of increased pressure and North Korean bellicose rhetoric,. We sat down 3 times with the leader of a rogue state, got not deal done, and then had our president talking about his great personal Relationship with rocket man on twitter? All the while making japan and South Korea extremely nervous and doing nothing for non-proliferation?
1 oss_spy 2020-06-26
And? What else?
So basically...the talks didn't pan out exactly the way "they were supposed to", therefore Trump bad, America foolish?
What? What about the fact that nobody else has done anything like that, let alone meet with him?
"But trump bad!"
My apologies, now i see the error of my ways.
1 [deleted] 2020-06-26
[removed]
1 istural 2020-06-26
Why do you think that just because no one else had done something that it automatically makes it good? This is horrific logic.
And yes, he caused material harm to the United States position in Asia by even doing these talks.he weakened our alliances in the pacific while China is rising, and have legitimacy to a tin pot dictator.
This isn’t even including the fact that Donny is completely rslurred about NATO and would like us to pull out or lessen our commitment because apparently being the worlds hegemon isn’t good enough for a return on investment.
1 IAmHebrewHammer 2020-06-26
Where do we turn at this point
1 MinerHornet 2020-06-26
AP or Reuters.
1 IAmHebrewHammer 2020-06-26
I already do that. I mean besides JOJO too. This two party system sucks a fat dick
1 The_Reason_Trump_Won 2020-06-26
Lol
1 uman230 2020-06-26
WSJ
2 Alicesnakebae 2020-06-26
Words V Words
1 SnapshillBot 2020-06-26
There is absolutely nowhere on Reddit (except maybe The Great Awakening) where stupider, sadder, scareder, or crazier comments consistently get upboats and support than this place you linked. You might think, Hey look! A place where women aren't all sucking tranny peen! Weird! But then you find out that they are scared of tranny peen, and believe that in a couple years, women who don't assimilate and get a peen themselves will be locked up in suspended cages, let down from their gibbets only to be repeatedly viciously raped and denied STEM jobs.
That place is like /r/drama if everyone here felt scared for their lives, and could only find possibly recourse in demanding mayocide and bussy. Swap our memes for 'white-female ethnosexstate now' and 'kill all men before they kill all women' and you have a pretty fair idea of their topics.
And that's where it gets interesting: they're unironically probussycide, unironically antifemayocide. Truly, /r/drama has its antithesis.
And believe me: it is dangerous.
Snapshots:
I am just a simple bot, *not** a moderator of this subreddit* | bot subreddit | contact the maintainers
1 TrailerParkRide 2020-06-26
NYT has been oozing drama lately, and they just can't seem to keep it internal. There was also that massive "no u" callout article in WaPo a month or so ago.
0 xX69Sixty-Nine69Xx 2020-06-26
I'm still confused about why Scott Alexander was so shocked by this. You can't write a blog popular enough for you to effectively become a public figure then act shocked when a paper reports on you like a public figure.
For all the kicking and screaming "grey tribe" rationalists make about how the left and right secretly don't value free speech, they sure seem to not value it when it's their guy in the crosshairs. Twitter delenda est and all that but acting like media shouldn't be reporting on a public figure with his real name is the peak of the idiocy stemming from this.
2 LetsFuckUpOurLives 2020-06-26
Would it be okay for me to dox you? After all you are posting on a public forum, does this mean you are a public figure? Or do you apply different standards to your own postings on the internet
3 xX69Sixty-Nine69Xx 2020-06-26
Are you actually so retarded that you can't tell the difference between a rando on r/drama and a blogger with millions of page views that had famous PhD's referring to him as a peer?
6 eblue 2020-06-26
NYT respected the pseudonymity of Virgil Texas and Banksy, among others. The grey tribe anger here arises from the suspicion that this was not, in fact, a puff piece, but rather designed to dox and stigmatize Alexander for allowing crimethinkers to visit his comment section. He was subject to a pretty aggressive doxing and harassment campaign by AHS types last year on the same topic (they flooded his medical practice with threatening phone calls, etc). IMO it's completely consistent to (i) stick up for free speech and (ii) choose not to give money or clicks to shitlib media outlets that conspire to retaliate against people for totally reasonable, blue-tribe-disfavored speech.
If Alexander had prefaced his plea for pseudonymity with "As a woman of color...", they would have honored it in a second.
1 xX69Sixty-Nine69Xx 2020-06-26
Oh I agree that its hypocritical bullshit. But NYT is still within the free speech rights that rationalists claim to love. Good on him for weaponizing it as a movement by shutting off the blog, but acting like this is out of left field or particularly surprising is either a Straussian sympathy play or just him being delusional.
2 UnheardIdentity 2020-06-26
You can be within free speech rights and have people pissed at you for it. This isn't the government or a major corporation punishing someone for speech. This is individual yelling a a company that they're shitty. There really isn't a conflict.
1 xX69Sixty-Nine69Xx 2020-06-26
For sure, but there's a lot of talk on the rationalist subs about the need for pro-privacy regulation. Which, in the context of a public figure like Scott, amounts to sour grapes that this time free speech meant a disruption to one of their own instead of the other culture war factions they act like they're above.
Don't get me wrong some privacy laws would be great. But I'd stop short at saying the media shouldn't be able name a particularly influential public person even if I don't like it and the NYT is being transparently hypocritical.
1 snowkarl 2020-06-26
are you retarded or something dude?
Journalistic standards and the regulatory laws are not the same thing. People are angry because the NYT is doxing the dude because of his opinions despite him explicitly stating he doesn't want to be doxed.
1 xX69Sixty-Nine69Xx 2020-06-26
I understand that, are you capable of reading comorehension? I'm saying that there is literal, 100% serious discussion about trying to create a "I want to be private no matter how influential I am" 1A exception going on in rationalist forums. I agree that the NYT is being hypocritical and mean-spirited, I don't agree that they are actually making some inherent violation to journalistic ethics. Scott is a public figure and needs to put on big boy pants and own up to the fact he's going to be reported on like one.
1 snowkarl 2020-06-26
I mean he literally isn't a public figure but whatever man!
Srdine alert
2 LetsFuckUpOurLives 2020-06-26
Okay
1 y________tho 2020-06-26
Why are you confused when he explained the root cause of his annoyance?
2 xX69Sixty-Nine69Xx 2020-06-26
No I understand why he feels frustrated, just surprised that he didn't expect this outcome. A random journo at NYT probably didn't perceive a puff piece about how right Scott usually is as threatening, especially when he's not an Epic Anti-Capitalist Freedom Fighter™® or somebody that Identity Politics deems needs special protection like Banksy or the Chapo hosts. Really a dumbass move from somebody who is usually in tune with the culture war shit.
Also the woe-is-me shit is dumb. Being named by the media does not equate to them considering you a criminal or terrorist. Scott can seethe harder as far as I'm concerned.
1 Bummunism 2020-06-26
Read something about it before you start manifestos. Scott asked him not to publish it. Journ* said no way.
1 GeminiRocket 2020-06-26
Schizo tier.
1 IncelReadingHour 2020-06-26
Grey tribe rise up!
0 Protista_of_Peace 2020-06-26
Why do people think the concept of doxing exists in the news media?