Comment by throwawaylolx
6 years ago
The original post made an argument of the following form:
>People who could offer smart insights consor themselves for fear of being attacked for their opinions.
The user you're replying to asked what opinions is Scott risking to be attacked about. You're providing arguments about Scott having offered smart insights, which was not the part of the argument debated. The original post shifted the discussion from Scott's worries--which were chiefly related to the dangers of working in psychology--towards the more general discussion about censorship as it is talked about in the works referenced above.
In other words, most of this thread is repurposing Scott's post to give a platform for their current political concerns.
> The original post shifted the discussion from Scott's worries--which were chiefly related to the dangers of working in psychology--towards the more general discussion about censorship
If you read Scott's post, it says that blog readers have tried to get him fired and sent him death threats. That's already happened, before his anonymity is completely broken by the NYT. He's written on a variety of political topics, including feminism and racism, which are now self-censored as the blog has been taken down. Censorship is very much a feature of Scott's post.
Plenty of people were attacked for their opinions on, e.g. the case for wearing masks, or the effectiveness of simple cloth coverings. Their opinions turned out to be correct. We can only know in retrospect what opinions will turn out to be controversial, so in effect you're asking for something impossible.