I signed the petition on the assumption that it was all just a misunderstanding, but I’m willing to fight dirty if they ignore the petition and publish the name anyway.
NYT as an org has a simple metric: profit. If they lose more subscriptions than they gain ad revenue, there is a good chance they will stop.
It is really hard for companies to get unambiguous signals of don’t do this thing; it’s why there are marketing budgets. This is a simple and unambiguous way for the broader community to express its unhappiness.
I believe that the NYT is untouchable for the ordinary person.
For one ordinary person, I agree. But Scott isn’t one, and neither are his high-profile fellows. However, leaving that aside...
Individuals within the NYT are touchable and if you can associate the choice of the individual to participate in gutter journalism with personal ruin then that will act as a disincentive outside of the control of the NYT.
Destroying NYT reporters is hard work for billionaires and presidents. My expectation for success is very low, because it is something that large newspapers are accustomed to dealing with and specific protections are provided by the law to prevent it.
Indeed I go as far as to say the press considers retaliation as a mark of success; based on Scott’s version of his interaction with the reporter I am confident this specific reporter also holds that view. All stories are improved by retaliation against the reporter; this will generate many more eyeballs than one blurb on one corner of the internet would. In summary, it is a very hard task and anything less than total success actually serves the reporter in particular and the NYT in general. Further, if you are unable or unlikely to do it to the next reporter, it doesn’t have any real deterrent value.
Consider: in order to ruin him, you’d have to convince the NYT to fire him. If you can do that, why not convince them to leave out one unimportant detail from an unimportant article instead?
The effects of weaponizing claims of sexism and racism against the NYT might have undesireable effects on the power conflicts inside of the organization.
I think you confuse judging moral responsibility with judging effective action.
Whenever you want to deal with a large political organization that you want to change it’s actions you want that faction win internal political battles that push the organization towards the ends you want.
If you don’t take that into account you will often end up with an organization reacting towards being attacked by getting even worse.
The article sees the claim it defends as “It is not okay to use lies, insults, and harassment against people, even if it would help you enforce your preferred social norms.”
Responding to force with force is different then enforcing preferred social norms.
Scott also doesn’t seem to want to act according the the role models of Martin Luther King, Desmond Tutu, Aung San Suu Kyi and Nelson Mandela who all share the effect that they wouldn’t let themselves be silenced.
The claim I was against was that there’s no point trying to petition as force is the only solution which is covered in some depth in that piece. Currently there is a clash of norms but no force has been used. My feelings will change somewhat if they do publish.
Yes, I’m meaning something along the lines of the actions suggested in the original comment but am doing a rubbish job at explaining this properly. Violence in particular was a poor choice of words and I have changed it to force in the grandparent comment.
All I was really wanting to say was that escalation isn’t the only solution and is usually a bad idea.
-
I signed the petition on the assumption that it was all just a misunderstanding, but I’m willing to fight dirty if they ignore the petition and publish the name anyway.
-
NYT as an org has a simple metric: profit. If they lose more subscriptions than they gain ad revenue, there is a good chance they will stop.
It is really hard for companies to get unambiguous signals of don’t do this thing; it’s why there are marketing budgets. This is a simple and unambiguous way for the broader community to express its unhappiness.
-
For one ordinary person, I agree. But Scott isn’t one, and neither are his high-profile fellows. However, leaving that aside...
Destroying NYT reporters is hard work for billionaires and presidents. My expectation for success is very low, because it is something that large newspapers are accustomed to dealing with and specific protections are provided by the law to prevent it.
Indeed I go as far as to say the press considers retaliation as a mark of success; based on Scott’s version of his interaction with the reporter I am confident this specific reporter also holds that view. All stories are improved by retaliation against the reporter; this will generate many more eyeballs than one blurb on one corner of the internet would. In summary, it is a very hard task and anything less than total success actually serves the reporter in particular and the NYT in general. Further, if you are unable or unlikely to do it to the next reporter, it doesn’t have any real deterrent value.
Consider: in order to ruin him, you’d have to convince the NYT to fire him. If you can do that, why not convince them to leave out one unimportant detail from an unimportant article instead?
The effects of weaponizing claims of sexism and racism against the NYT might have undesireable effects on the power conflicts inside of the organization.
-
Not all of the NYTimes is the enemy.
The Daily Beast article has some information about how other NYTimes employees are against de-anonymising Scott.
-
I think you confuse judging moral responsibility with judging effective action.
Whenever you want to deal with a large political organization that you want to change it’s actions you want that faction win internal political battles that push the organization towards the ends you want.
If you don’t take that into account you will often end up with an organization reacting towards being attacked by getting even worse.
I’m In Favor of Niceness, Community and Civilization.
The article sees the claim it defends as “It is not okay to use lies, insults, and harassment against people, even if it would help you enforce your preferred social norms.”
Responding to force with force is different then enforcing preferred social norms.
Scott also doesn’t seem to want to act according the the role models of Martin Luther King, Desmond Tutu, Aung San Suu Kyi and Nelson Mandela who all share the effect that they wouldn’t let themselves be silenced.
The claim I was against was that there’s no point trying to petition as force is the only solution which is covered in some depth in that piece. Currently there is a clash of norms but no force has been used. My feelings will change somewhat if they do publish.
I do agree that engaging in preemptive violence would be a stupid move.
I’m supposing the “violence” and “force” here is figurative, as in “a forceful response to their deanonymization of Scott”?
Yes, I’m meaning something along the lines of the actions suggested in the original comment but am doing a rubbish job at explaining this properly. Violence in particular was a poor choice of words and I have changed it to force in the grandparent comment.
All I was really wanting to say was that escalation isn’t the only solution and is usually a bad idea.
-