Sneering my way through the comments.

Here’s Jonatan Pallesen, whose twitter bio is: “PhD in statistical genetics. I analyze and tweet about questions in science and economics.” HMM.

Another example of targeting in this case is me. I wrote a critique of Claudine Gay's research, which I think is quite strong. (https://x.com/jonatanpallesen/status/1749546447811277119 and https://x.com/jonatanpallesen/status/1740324971430154471)

Putting aside the validity of the critiques, why does this fellow feel the need to look into this research at this point in time? Could it be that he is… targeting Gay while she is in the limelight? Couldn’t be, only the evil media would do such a thing.

And for this I was attacked by the Guardian for things completely unrelated, such as my views on immigration, and previous coauthors.

So I went ahead and searched the dude’s name and “guardian”. Here’s what showed up.

If I were to guess why he was “attacked” (really just reported on accurately), it would be that he was name checked by one of the main parties involved in Gay’s resignation, and the guardian was doing its due diligence and investigating every aspect of the story. That’s way less assuming than Jon’s explanation of being targeted.

It can obviously have a chilling effect if you write a critique of a scientific paper, you risk being called racist by a major newspaper.

Better ways to say what really happened:

• A racist dude sung my praises, the guardian suspected I am racist by association, investigated, and found out that I am indeed racist.
• If you say and do racist shit like race science, people will call you racist, because you are racist

There’s a lot to snark at. A few in particular:

• Scott is irrationally scared of journalism. He talks about it as if it’s an omnipresent, omnipotent spectre that swoops down on people on a whim and destroys their lives when it pleases the spectre. In reality, the “whims” are a confluence of the subject’s presence in the public consciousness and market pressures on reporting.
• Scott has no clue how power works. On one side, you have someone who resigned because of a billionaire-backed witch hunt. On the other, Oxman didn’t resign. Scott fails to see that it’s the billionaire who holds power here, and instead thinks it’s the journalists, specifically the ones that said his understanding of journalism was shit at best.
• This whole post is really an expression/extension of Scott’s victim mentality/persecution complex/“nice guy” personality, where the mean ‘jocks’ (journalists/people scott doesn’t agree with) get to ‘date the hot girls’ (by which I mean, ‘commit lots of mild misdeeds’), while the ‘nice guys’ (the eugenicist sex creeps) are shunned by society.

The rightwing activist Christopher Rufo has links to a self-styled “sociobiology magazine” that is focused on the supposed relationships between race, intelligence and criminality, and which experts have characterized as an outlet for scientific racism.

At the time of reporting, Aporia was one of 19 Substack newsletters Rufo links to in the “recommended” section on his own newsletter, which according to Substack has more than 50,000 subscribers. Rufo also appeared on Aporia’s podcast, which has published flattering interviews with proponents of scientific racism and eugenics. [...] The Guardian emailed Rufo with questions on his apparent endorsement of Aporia, and how he reconciled that with his professed “colorblindness”. He did not respond directly to any questions put to him but instead made a crude sexual insult to a Guardian reporter.

(source)

conservative journalists Chris Rufo

Journalist ...

Rufo ...

(For those who don't know the guy, Rufo is basically somebody who goes 'for my next racist trick, im going to make all the journalists go crazy over some racist shit I mostly invented and blew up. Look at how I will make CRT the new boogyman' and then after he explained the trick it causes all the 'both sides centrists (like Scott)' follow with his frame and fall into the very obvious pittrap he just dug. And it keeps happening. I know it is very much passe already to call people who you disagree with who others call journalists propagandists, so I will not do so here butttttt (even wikipedia calls him an activist)). Another edit, look revelant stuff from twitter And the 'sorry nitter is dead' screenshot (referenced link)

Amazing how I cannot finish the first couple of paragraphs of a SSC post without getting mad.

E:

I have a personal interest in this because of my experiences with effective altruism.

And not your 'im secretly NRx just wish they focussed more on the racism and less on the kings' skeleton on the closet?

Scott's wearing a very tasteful tinfoil hat that no one in good society would object to.

The first section made sense. I nodded a few times. The second section made me grimace a few times. “Criticize a leftist and we’ll go after your family” really misses the general point that the whole “people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones” coverage really emphasized. When the third section mentioned EA I immediately flipped back to the comments both prepared to rip OP a new one and hoping I was in sneerclub. I am so thankful I was in sneerclub because fuck is this article dumb as shit.

I’m not criticizing Rufo and Brunet.

Why not, you hypocritical fuck?

What's the relation to Target the department store? Are they problematic or somehow involved in this scandal?

It's only targeting if the card or errata says so.

ChatGPT, give me a phrase for when university professors are found to have committed plagiarism in their dissertations:

*fifteen-year-stale peccadillos *