undefined | Better HN

0 pointsPragmaticPulp5y ago0 comments

The real irony is that the rationalist community’s strong reaction to this article as propelled it to a level of popularity that wouldn’t have been possible otherwise.

Without the months of speculation and build-up and the seeming desire for everyone to write their own nit-picks of what the article got wrong (while deliberately ignoring what it might have gotten right), this article likely wouldn’t have received much traction at all.

0 comments

4 comments · 2 top-level

Bakary5y ago· 2 in thread

I'm probably heavily projecting my own personal flaws here, but I've come to believe that the driving force behind that community is to feel smart and be recognized as such in some public forum. Therefore their strategic thinking was compromised from the start in this particular instance. There was no chance of them collectively deciding to follow your proposition.

coldtea5y ago

Perhaps it was not about "strategic thinking" to achieve some end goal, but about denouncing what they feel is wrong?

Besides, I don't see any "let's stragetically be hush about it, so the article goes unnoticed" ever working.

The mere publishing of the article, with no reaction, would be enough to have personal consequences for the blogger.

At least with the big commotion, the shittiness of NYT publishing it has come under scutiny too.

So the reaction might be strategically good too.

pseudalopex5y ago

Siskind said taking SSC down was strategic. And an overreaction.

coldtea5y ago

>The real irony is that the rationalist community’s strong reaction to this article as propelled it to a level of popularity that wouldn’t have been possible otherwise.

It wouldn't need much popularity to do damage. A modestly popular article exposing the guy would be enough for him to have personal consequences. People have been cancelled (from their jobs) for less.

On the other hand, the big reaction might stop the next such bullying, or at least make the next journalist consider that they're doing something scummy and tacky.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

4 comments · 2 top-level

Bakary5y ago· 2 in thread

coldtea5y ago

Perhaps it was not about "strategic thinking" to achieve some end goal, but about denouncing what they feel is wrong?

Besides, I don't see any "let's stragetically be hush about it, so the article goes unnoticed" ever working.

The mere publishing of the article, with no reaction, would be enough to have personal consequences for the blogger.

At least with the big commotion, the shittiness of NYT publishing it has come under scutiny too.

So the reaction might be strategically good too.

pseudalopex5y ago

Siskind said taking SSC down was strategic. And an overreaction.

coldtea5y ago

>The real irony is that the rationalist community’s strong reaction to this article as propelled it to a level of popularity that wouldn’t have been possible otherwise.

On the other hand, the big reaction might stop the next such bullying, or at least make the next journalist consider that they're doing something scummy and tacky.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse