[db-interface]

While I don't agree with all of the framing in the NYT story, it's worth noting that Scott Alexander was much friendlier to Moldbug et. al. than the anti-Metz camp argued at the time: https://twitter.com/ArsonAtDennys/status/1362153191102677001

I think Metz's motivation for that framing was his assumption that if SA was not at least sympathetic to NRx views, he would not allow them to be such a big voice in his comments and in his community. You can argue about the reasonableness of this assumption, but he did turn out to be right.

[kragen]

alexander is the guy who wrote the 30,000 word anti-reactionary faq about why moldbug was wrong, though; those screenshots explain in detail why he was unsympathetic to their neoreactionary views, rather than demonstrating that he was sympathetic to them

he does say some things there that are entirely outside the pale and that he should have known better than, but sad to say, those particular beliefs aren't limited to neoreactionaries

[db-interface]

I don't mean to say that he was a closet NRx -- and IMO neither did Metz imply that -- just that he agreed with a much larger subset of their controversial views than he or his allies admitted publicly. I would consider that being "sympathetic" to NRx.

[Manuel_D]

This is straightforward guilt-by-association: because of the mere fact that Scott interacted with people espousing neo reactionary views, he must also be sympathetic to those views. Of course, this is completed wrong and easily known by reading Scotts writings on the topic: https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/10/20/the-anti-reactionary-f...

There is zero way to say in good faith the Scott espouses or even agrees with neo reactionism.

[db-interface]

I said he was "sympathetic to NRx views" and linked emails from him stating certain views widely held by Moldbug et. al. that he is sympathetic to. Do you disagree that "HBD" is an NRx view, or that the leaked emails express sympathy for it?