Yglesias’s piece is much better than the Times’, and much better than other takes, but he’s still missing a few things.
1. Scott is worth reading.
2. Sometimes Scott tackles controversial topics and takes positions I disagree with, but we should not stop reading everything he writes because of that.
3. One controversial topic Scott sometimes writes about is race, and in particular race science, by which I mean the genetic correlations between race and traits like IQ.
4. Scott chose to write under a quasi-pseudonym, Scott Alexander, most of the time, precisely because he didn’t want his controversial takes to affect the rest of his life and community.
5. In building his blog, Scott appealed to and courted several different groups. The most important groups for the purpose of this discussion are Rationalists, neoreactionaries, so-called race realists, and tech people.
6. Some of the tech people he appealed to are prominent, and they would eventually support him both publicly and privately.
7. At the same time and independent of Scott, America has undergone a shift in its appraisal of both technology and race, and American society has become more polarized for reasons that are too complex to explore here.
8. Technology is seen as more important in American society, and many of its effects are now interpreted as potentially harmful. This has raised the profile of tech leaders in the public eye, and has made the media more critical of them. (They can be important, or they can be ignored by the critical press, but they cannot expect to be both.)
9. Race-baiting became common during the Trump years, even as critical race theory went more mainstream among liberals.
10. If Scott had simply written a blog that was popular among tech people, the mainstream media would have covered him with a puff piece.
11. Scott repeatedly convinced journalists not to profile him, however, because he did not want the increased attention. (Did he know where it would lead?)
12. If Scott had simply moderated a comment section where race realism was widespread, he would have been just another wing nut on the Internet, deserving no notice outside the SPLC. But Scott did both.
13. I personally believe Scott saw the contradictions and strategic flaws in his choices. He had built a blog that was both influential among famous people, widely read by “race realists”, and written under a quasi-pseudonym.
14. Which brings us to the media. They write stories about important and famous people, because their readers want to know about those people. Journalists don’t care about those important and famous people as people; they care about them as stories. As decision makers who may affect the rest of us.
15. The best stories are surprising, and when something is surprising, sometimes it is surprising because it has been kept hidden, because it is shameful.
16. Scott was hiding something. Not just his full name, but the extent to which his blog was enmeshed with neoreactionary movements and so-called race realism.
17. Scott is still hiding things; he is giving a distorted version of events. (And to re-iterate, I will continue to read his posts although I see him being disingenuous about these issues.) He says he has only spoken with Thiel once. Yes, but Scott worked at a startup funded by Thiel, Metamed. Scott is close with one of Thiel’s mentees, Balaji Srinivasan. Both Balaji and Thiel funded the startup of Curtis Yarvin/Mencius Moldbug, even as Scott discussed Yarvin’s writings in depth on his popular blog.
18. Some of his prominent tech supporters were aware of Scott’s interest in race science and continued to support him publicly. Others were probably not aware.
19. That is the root cause that resulted in Scott receiving the coverage he did. It was not about Scott. It was not because of any personal animosity that the Times or its reporters bear towards him. It is because he managed to bring prominent tech people and race scientists together on one blog for years, and keep it hidden, until it blew up in his face, because it was, in fact, a big story.
1. Scott is worth reading.
2. Sometimes Scott tackles controversial topics and takes positions I disagree with, but we should not stop reading everything he writes because of that.
3. One controversial topic Scott sometimes writes about is race, and in particular race science, by which I mean the genetic correlations between race and traits like IQ.
4. Scott chose to write under a quasi-pseudonym, Scott Alexander, most of the time, precisely because he didn’t want his controversial takes to affect the rest of his life and community.
5. In building his blog, Scott appealed to and courted several different groups. The most important groups for the purpose of this discussion are Rationalists, neoreactionaries, so-called race realists, and tech people.
6. Some of the tech people he appealed to are prominent, and they would eventually support him both publicly and privately.
7. At the same time and independent of Scott, America has undergone a shift in its appraisal of both technology and race, and American society has become more polarized for reasons that are too complex to explore here.
8. Technology is seen as more important in American society, and many of its effects are now interpreted as potentially harmful. This has raised the profile of tech leaders in the public eye, and has made the media more critical of them. (They can be important, or they can be ignored by the critical press, but they cannot expect to be both.)
9. Race-baiting became common during the Trump years, even as critical race theory went more mainstream among liberals. 10. If Scott had simply written a blog that was popular among tech people, the mainstream media would have covered him with a puff piece.
11. Scott repeatedly convinced journalists not to profile him, however, because he did not want the increased attention. (Did he know where it would lead?)
12. If Scott had simply moderated a comment section where race realism was widespread, he would have been just another wing nut on the Internet, deserving no notice outside the SPLC. But Scott did both.
13. I personally believe Scott saw the contradictions and strategic flaws in his choices. He had built a blog that was both influential among famous people, widely read by “race realists”, and written under a quasi-pseudonym.
14. Which brings us to the media. They write stories about important and famous people, because their readers want to know about those people. Journalists don’t care about those important and famous people as people; they care about them as stories. As decision makers who may affect the rest of us.
15. The best stories are surprising, and when something is surprising, sometimes it is surprising because it has been kept hidden, because it is shameful.
16. Scott was hiding something. Not just his full name, but the extent to which his blog was enmeshed with neoreactionary movements and so-called race realism.
17. Scott is still hiding things; he is giving a distorted version of events. (And to re-iterate, I will continue to read his posts although I see him being disingenuous about these issues.) He says he has only spoken with Thiel once. Yes, but Scott worked at a startup funded by Thiel, Metamed. Scott is close with one of Thiel’s mentees, Balaji Srinivasan. Both Balaji and Thiel funded the startup of Curtis Yarvin/Mencius Moldbug, even as Scott discussed Yarvin’s writings in depth on his popular blog.
18. Some of his prominent tech supporters were aware of Scott’s interest in race science and continued to support him publicly. Others were probably not aware.
19. That is the root cause that resulted in Scott receiving the coverage he did. It was not about Scott. It was not because of any personal animosity that the Times or its reporters bear towards him. It is because he managed to bring prominent tech people and race scientists together on one blog for years, and keep it hidden, until it blew up in his face, because it was, in fact, a big story.