I've decided to say "screw it" and post receipts showing that Scott Siskind (the guy behind Slate Star Codex) isn't being honest about his history with the far-right.

The context is that I'd been publicly critical of the rationalist community's relationship with /1
a branch of the online far right that called themselves "neoreactionaries", and Scott (a vague internet acquaintance at the time) basically responded by saying, "oh, I agree the people you're thinking of don't have much of value to say" but offered to point me to supposedly /2
"better" examples of neoreactionary thought. This is what he sent me—something I was very much not expecting. (And no, he did not first say "can I tell you something in confidence?" or anything like that.)

Posting this now because Scott accusing @CadeMetz of dishonesty and /3
a lot of people are jumping on that to smear Metz and the NYT. The thing is, Metz never said Scott endorsed the far-right or anything like that—just that the Slate Star Codex community was far more welcoming to the far-right than to so-called "SJWs". That's a simple fact that /4
has been a matter of public record for years. Scott and his defenders says it's dishonest to point that out because it might lead people to infer Scott is far more sympathetic to the far-right than he's admitted publicly. But the inference is correct. /5
HBD is "Human biodiversity", a euphemism for race science.

(Proponents typically try to claim it includes more than just race science, but IME this is approximately as true as the claim that Intelligent Design isn't just about being anti-evolution.) https://twitter.com/ArmandDoma/status/1362113599766888452
You can follow @TopherTBrennan.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled:

By continuing to use the site, you are consenting to the use of cookies as explained in our Cookie Policy to improve your experience.