Comment by mundo
6 years ago
I've also been reading SSC for a long time. I'm sad, but honestly, who's surprised? I mean, he defended Steven Hsu the other day for being on the wrong side of the whole "race/IQ differences" thing, despite having written probably a dozen essays over the years about the phenomenon of prominent people losing their jobs for being on the wrong side of the race/IQ differences thing.
Scott's had a pretty amazing run of being able to write edgy-enough-to-possibly-get-you-cancelled essays on the internet without getting cancelled, and on a personal level I've found him to be extremely kind and thoughtful and I wish this weren't happening to him, but at the same time it seems as inevitable as the flooding of a house built on low ground.
Honestly, I'm surprised. This doesn't look like getting cancelled for being edgy. There's no mob that I can see pushing to doxx him.
It looks to me more like the reporter decided that Scott's refusal to use his real last name was a weird request, not a legitimate security concern for his patients and himself. The reporter just doesn't get it.
It's not like it adds to the story. Every on the internet knows Scott as "Scott Alexander". I didn't even know it wasn't his real last name until today. It just seems so cruel to insist on doing this to Scott when I can't see any good reason to do it.
> The reporter just doesn't get it.
Full-time reporters don't get why a source might not want to be named? Dude that's a high-school level journalism discussion. If you're a full-timer at the NYT you get why, and are either complying with a corporate policy or grinding a political axe.
> If you're a full-timer at the NYT you get why, and are either complying with a corporate policy or grinding a political axe.
Or you are just an asshole.
There does not seem to be a good reason to refer to him by his full name rather than Scott Alexander. But there are a lot of bad reasons.
The main way I could see using Scott’s full name as being valid is if the reporter is outing some sort of malpractice, which I do not think is the case. I struggle really to think of any other good reasons.
In this context, he's not a "source"--he's the subject of an article. Using the subject's full name is one way to prove to your readers that you're writing about who you claim you're writing about.
1 reply →