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.
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!