[bondarchuk]

Your characterization of point 1, at least, makes no sense to me. All the NYT article says on that point is:

>In one post, he aligned himself with Charles Murray, who proposed a link between race and I.Q. in “The Bell Curve.” In another, he pointed out that Mr. Murray believes Black people “are genetically less intelligent than white people.”

I don't understand why you would say it is dishonest to dissect that paragraph and point out that Scott agreed with Murray on something non-racist, and quoted a racist statement without agreeing with it. Scott is not agreeing with "The Bell Curve" and Scott has not said that he believes that black people are "genetically less intelligent than white people.” Before defending yourself against such accusations it would be wise to point out that they are baseless, and of course it's much wiser to leave it at that.

[eatplayrove]

Just to clarify, when I said

> 3 of them not addressing the point at hand, and 1 point dishonest at best

I meant counts of points, i.e., three of them not addressing the issue (points 1,3,4) and one dishonest (point 2) - reasons above. So dishonesty was not related to point 1, sorry if it reads like that.

To further elaborate for 1,3, and 4; I don't contend with his explanations - but they do not address the larger question of whether/why racists/sexists find his blog appealing.

[bondarchuk]

>but they do not address the larger question of whether/why racists/sexists find his blog appealing.

Whether or not that is something you can and should address is of course one of the main issues here. The NYT would like if you only quote, welcome, converse, engage with people who are 100% correct and approved in all their views. If you disagree with that then there is also not much to explain. Sometimes unpleasant people like to read good blogs, and sometimes unpleasant people say insightful things that you might want to incorporate in your blogpost. Such is life.