The difference is, I think, that we’re just asking them to not publish Scott’s name. I would not support this kind of pushback against criticism, even if it were silly.
Edit: This is not an endorsement of Mati_Roy’s list. I do endorse politely writing to NYT.
I still don’t get it. agc asked how is the retaliation NOT at attempt to stifle criticism. TurnTrout answered that it is not: it’s retaliation for a doxing attack, not for criticism. Then wolflow said something that’s “literally” wrong, and metaphorically I didn’t get it; probably TurnTrout didn’t get it too so he answered the literal interpretation. Etc etc.
But the upvotes-downvotes show I’m not seeing something here.
Your post seemed (and still seems) to be claiming that retaliating for name publication is so significantly different from retaliating for criticism that observers will probably understand.
I can’t tell if you think that, or if you think retaliating is counterproductive, and polite requests are the way to go.
I think it’s more understandable that reasonable people would be upset about doxxing than about criticism. I don’t think it’s understandable to the point that outside observers would actually go “oh, OK, fair reply to the NYT’s bad taste”. Realistically speaking, I think they would think very poorly of us for “retaliating”.
It seems improbable that the responses suggested by Mati_Roy would lead to positive changes at NYT.
They couldn’t. Retaliating, or threatening to retaliate, is simply an incorrect avenue to address this behavior. The NYT, and most observers, will immediately discount all opinions from a direction that contains members who behave this way.
Retaliation or threats is applying a wrong theory of mind/decisions to the organization. It’s not an individual, and doesn’t feel fear. It’s not irrationally averse to your anger or actions, and it VERY rationally will decide whether to ignore or crush you, with no thought at all to giving in or reconciling.
Organizations, and entire nations for that matter, can absolutely be made to “feel fear”. The retaliation just needs to be sufficiently expensive for the organization. Afterwards, it’ll factor in the costs of that retaliation when deciding how to act. If the cost is large enough, it won’t do things that will trigger retaliation.
Oops, meant to cancel, rather than post. I don’t agree, and it’s probably not useful to debate.
s/for the organization/for many influential members of the organization/
Yes, they _can_ be manipulated and threatened in this way. But not easily, and not without pretty significant commitment on the part of a coordinated and resource-heavy attacker. Below the threshold of ”
How could an outside observer tell the difference between this, and a cult trying to stifle criticism?
The difference is, I think, that we’re just asking them to not publish Scott’s name. I would not support this kind of pushback against criticism, even if it were silly.
Edit: This is not an endorsement of Mati_Roy’s list. I do endorse politely writing to NYT.
You’re literally replying this to a top level comment with the headline “On retaliating” that gives examples for how to retaliate.
I literally did not reply to the top-level comment, but rather to its child. Did you reply to the wrong person?
Here’s what happened:
1. There’s a top level comment called “on retaliating
2. agc repleid to that comment and asked how this was different from trying to silence criticism.
3. You replied saying “we’re just asking them to not publish scotts name”—even though agc was asking about the “retaliating” comment
I still don’t get it. agc asked how is the retaliation NOT at attempt to stifle criticism. TurnTrout answered that it is not: it’s retaliation for a doxing attack, not for criticism. Then wolflow said something that’s “literally” wrong, and metaphorically I didn’t get it; probably TurnTrout didn’t get it too so he answered the literal interpretation. Etc etc.
But the upvotes-downvotes show I’m not seeing something here.
Makes sense. I hadn’t realized my comment might be seen as an endorsement of Mati_Roy’s list.
To clarify: I think it’s more reasonable to respond like this to the name issue than to criticism. I don’t personally endorse that list.
Your post seemed (and still seems) to be claiming that retaliating for name publication is so significantly different from retaliating for criticism that observers will probably understand.
I can’t tell if you think that, or if you think retaliating is counterproductive, and polite requests are the way to go.
I think it’s more understandable that reasonable people would be upset about doxxing than about criticism. I don’t think it’s understandable to the point that outside observers would actually go “oh, OK, fair reply to the NYT’s bad taste”. Realistically speaking, I think they would think very poorly of us for “retaliating”.
It seems improbable that the responses suggested by Mati_Roy would lead to positive changes at NYT.
If you want to clarify, edit your original post.
Done!
They couldn’t. Retaliating, or threatening to retaliate, is simply an incorrect avenue to address this behavior. The NYT, and most observers, will immediately discount all opinions from a direction that contains members who behave this way.
Retaliation or threats is applying a wrong theory of mind/decisions to the organization. It’s not an individual, and doesn’t feel fear. It’s not irrationally averse to your anger or actions, and it VERY rationally will decide whether to ignore or crush you, with no thought at all to giving in or reconciling.
Organizations, and entire nations for that matter, can absolutely be made to “feel fear”. The retaliation just needs to be sufficiently expensive for the organization. Afterwards, it’ll factor in the costs of that retaliation when deciding how to act. If the cost is large enough, it won’t do things that will trigger retaliation.
Oops, meant to cancel, rather than post. I don’t agree, and it’s probably not useful to debate.
s/for the organization/for many influential members of the organization/
Yes, they _can_ be manipulated and threatened in this way. But not easily, and not without pretty significant commitment on the part of a coordinated and resource-heavy attacker. Below the threshold of ”
doxing =/= criticism