Reading this reminded me of of big reason that I really like Slate Star Codex: When Scott disagrees with someone, he describes that person's opinions fairly.<p>Scott would summarise David Duke's writing in such a way that David Duke himself would say that's a fair summary, and only then disagree. Maybe that's being "rather more receptive to neo-nazi rhetoric" to quote that eruditorumpress page, and maybe it is. Maybe today's etiquette is best regarded as that which most people to doday. So when Scott doesn't misquote or put strawmen into anyone's mouths, he's just out of touch.<p>A few lines down from the "rather more" quote is a statement that Scott "is someone who […] openly advocates eugenics." He is? I hadn't noticed. Scott would have inserted quotations to support such statement. Which may be out of touch and may make him seem receptive &c, but I like it.
A submission comment since this is very long: Like many hn readers, I personally enjoy Scott Alexander's writing. This is a rather scathing but very long criticism of his style, so I thought it may make for interesting discussion here.<p>I am trying to make up my mind - OP started with some observations about his style which I found partially relevant, but then derailed into something that seemed motivated more by political disagreement.
> I would like to begin by stressing how deeply miserable I am to be back on this beat. [...] Since people seem to love pointing out that Neoreaction a Basilisk does not actually talk about Scott Siskind, aka Scott Alexander, here’s another goddamn essay.<p>The author certainly didn’t owe anyone another article, but it would be nice if there was a point to it beyond pointing out Scott’s obvious and consistent reluctance to reach falsifiable conclusions or express more than weakly held opinions.<p>Isn’t all philosophical writing, good or bad, vague?
> Does anything straightforwardly emerge from these examples? Do they reveal anything about the nature of tolerance?<p>No, Alexander's point is precisely that tolerance might be more complex then it appears. This is what happens when someone who is used to pieces with ten straightforward examples of the outgroup being bad encounters an actual attempt to understand and think about something.
When a writer opens 10k words by moaning, and not even moaning in an entertaining way, I have no time in my life for this.<p>I read enough of this to see that they're setting up to criticize the way someone is presenting an argument. The few attempts at self awareness to the irony does not fix anything. It just makes it all the more tedious.