[wilsocr88]

I feel out of the loop for never having read this guy's work before this faux-outrage-turned-scandal, but everything I'm reading of his is great. He's focused, honest, and straightforward, and you can tell her really lets his own voice come out in his writing.

It's funny seeing things I've said for 5-10 years come out as mainstream common knowledge, namely that mainstream journalism is either lazy, extremist, or both. When I first said it I was called reactionary, or paranoid.

[aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA]

> mainstream journalism is either lazy, extremist, or both

More significant than those factors is time pressure and limited staffing.

You can have your news fast, cheap, or unbiased. Pick two.

[mcilai]

Don't forget the very broken incentives.

[dandare]

Same here, never heard of SSC before and I am reading his older articles right now. A true Streisand effect moment.

[claudiawerner]

I've come from yet another perspective as someone who once read a few SSC articles and found them lacking or outright bad, but this past week, reading more of them has changed my opinion. For sure I disagree with Scott on some fundamental points, but the balance he is able to bring and the nuance he is able to tease out, plus the consideration of ideas which on first glance lead to bad conclusions being shown that need not be the case.

I'm far from the typical political persuasion that one might consider to be interested in SSC (check my about text/comments on here) but I think I gain some perspective with the SSC articles I've read that goes beyond pure endless abstract philosophical rumination.

So from my point of view, Scott deserves at least one cheer, and probably more. His blog may not stand to the level of academic analysis, but in contrast to the quality of other blogs and especially Twitter style argumentation, it's quite a beacon and his writing style and intellectual charity something to emulate in online discourse.