I got as far as “he says crypto is bad but also didn’t make any money in crypto!” before I couldn’t go any farther. Up until that point the author was at least doing a pretty competent job of using negative space (i.e. not engaging with the specific issues of racism, cult of personality, etc.) and using sufficiently boring prose to avoid seeming completely insane.
Attempt 2 got all the way to the part about Scott before I had to come up for air.
-
The defense of Wikipedia’s preference for policy over basic human decency in the Chelsea Manning name change was once again left entirely implicit.
-
This is probably for the best because otherwise David’s insistence on reliable sources over letting LWers do their own hagiography on Wikipedia’s letterhead is much harder to criticize.
-
Is Neoreaction: a Basilisk a bit of a woozle/citogenesis? Maybe? But are we going to argue about the central factual claims it makes? Nope. There’s no attempt to dispute the overlap between NRX and Ratdom, just an un-argued assumption that nobody should care enough to put it in their Wikipedia article. I swear, you build ten thousand bridges and nobody cares but you repeatedly speak favorably of actual fascist’s attitudes on race science on your large and influential platform and everyone loses their minds.
Edit because man who can remember how to do formatting?
