r/SneerClub archives
Based on the information of our best Inside Sources, we should destroy the NYT (https://twitter.com/TheAgeofShoddy/status/1278464263397363712)

The tweet was subsequently deleted and replaced with this


For those curious: the retweeted tweet claimed that “inside sources” told them that journalist Cade Metz was asking around if white supremacy was discussed often at rationalist meetings.

You ask that question at any normal meetups (Furry conventions, Magic the Gatherings, Fark parties) and the response you'll get it "No. No man. Shit no, man. I believe you'd get your ass kicked for saying something like that, man." But these guys got a hint that someone might be asking that about SSC meetups, and they wonder why they can't deploy a fucking [Stuxnet](https://twitter.com/punch_sideiron/status/1278467926086111234) virus on NYT. Good grief.
“What would you do with a million dollars?” “Two furries at the same time.”
Stuxnet lmao. Talk about entitlement. "I'm being investigated by the NYT, when is my monumentally and historically impressive feet of cybersecurity engineering, that I deserve, coming to destroy my enemies?"
did they really use the phrase "white supremacy" because that sounds like a weakass copout question for someone who doesn't expect/want to find anything by asking "oh sure, we talk about racial IQ differences, the irretrievable welfare class, physiognomy, ethnostates, antiracist schemes to suppress the science, the wit and wisdom of Steve Sailer, and the Fourteen Words, but no of course none of us would spend a minute on anything as obtuse as *white supremacy!"*
The tweet had “white supremacist” in quotes, but it’s basically a game of telephone at this point
Metz may be trying to draw them out by providing an opinion ssc readers think is wrong, so that they will therefore be irresistibly driven to "correct" him. Incorrecting people is catnip to that sort.
This comment is chefs kiss
The way they are, that's like a mega trap question - they proceed to explain how it is *technically* not white supremacy.
[This](https://imgur.com/gallery/GxUFH#trGkRb4) but with the ideas of white supremacy and the ssc/themotte.
> Cade Metz was asking around if white supremacy was discussed often at rationalist meetings. Answer: yes Also, this is exactly what I've been hoping for. The aggressive response by SSC to a random puff piece is making a lot of people very curious about what's actually happening here.
Someone caught the deleted tweet on the archive, it's here: [http://archive.fo/q6ct2](http://archive.fo/q6ct2)

NYT delenda est.

E: also, anybody have ‘black friend’ on their bingo?

And people calling for cyberwarfare on NYT are really really stupid. We know how much damage that can do. Notpetya only did 10 billion dollars in damages. Because the world got lucky, and some data could be recovered due to a power outage. But yeah, im sure that will improve the reporting of the NYT, more threats.

Threatening to hack the NYT is actually the best way to convince them you’re totally normal fans of a totally normal blog.
Scotler Durden: We code your javascript while you sleep, [do not fuck with us](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whvDmNkJhUk).

they will destroy you for money, status, fame, or for the simple pleasure of doing so

no, not really

they will destroy you

yeah, they absolutely will, and they won’t particularly care, and I genuinely do sympathize with Rationalists coming up against a giant faceless Machine that does not care about their arguments, lives, feelings, or well-being. it might be the first time they’ve ever experienced a face-to-face with such a Machine. the racist bad ones aren’t a loss but the other Rationalists who genuinely do just want to think real hard about neat stuff… yeah, I sympathize

>For you, the day ~~Bison~~ the NYT graced your ~~village~~ blog was the most important day in your life. But for me... it was Tuesday. --NYT, probably
I'd feel worse about it if these people had ever demonstrated any capacity for the same empathy towards other groups. I'm not sure there's actually "other" rationalists. MLK's quote on the white moderate and all that.
there are, I know a few. the ppl who are really into rationalism are nearly always into the whole race science thing, but the ppl who bought the whole Critical Thinking shit and just like Meditations on Moloch and hang around r/ssc often aren't aware of rationalism's stinking underbelly. if anything they acknowledge structural racism, sexism, homo/transphobia, etc, but they think that these are inefficiencies in the system and not a natural consequence of the system. which can be forgiven imo if they're genuinely not to the second bit yet. most people, rationalist or not, hang out in the inefficiencies mindset for a very long time. the trouble comes when they repeatedly deny that oppression isn't a glitch but a feature
Fair enough, great points. I know a lot of people are on their own path towards understanding this stuff, and I'd be lying if I said I wasn't totally ignorant in my own way when I was younger. I still think the frighteningly high concentration of varying shades of racism/racists should be a massive red flag the moment you notice it, enough to make any decent person seriously reconsider their desire to be a member of the community and examine what it is about the ideology that makes it vulnerable to these problems.
Yeah, for a long time I hung around with those types because I thought the white nationalism was just a glitch that I could try not to worry about, and I only finally quit when I realized it was an inseparable feature of how Rationalists hold conversations plus the narrow demographics they draw from. If I hadn't wasted so much time getting to know the fans, I might still think the blog was good.
Serious suggestion: add a link to some posts about this (e.g. Epistaxis' criticism post to the sidebar) to help people that casual-browse SSC realise this.

I like how they assume it will be a hit piece merely because he is asking those questions. If the meetings are as diverse as they claim, then people will tell him that. If white supremacy is seldom discussed, then that will come out. Why do they think he’ll discover anything else?

It could even be a win for them, if they had actually permabanned some white nats from attending, and just mentioned that.
It’s myopic to think this ever could have been a win for Scott. It’s easy as internet sneerers to forget that Scott is a real practicing psychiatrist who seems to take his job seriously. The fact is that if you have a blog where you post every one of your political opinions under a pseudonym and this is exposed to your employer in an article from the New York Times, you are entirely reasonable to be freaking out, especially if you went through a decade of training to start your career like Scott did. His employer is also far more likely to take umbrage at his frequent criticisms of the institution of psychiatry, such as regulatory capture of the FDA, corporate influence in major psychiatry conventions, and the structure of medical school admissions than that obscure racist nobodies show up to comment on his internet blog. There’s no reason to expect his employer is any more reasonable than Scott (if you’ve ever had the chance to speak to a large number of random people about politics you’ll have an appreciation for how depraved and psychotic are the typical opinions of Americans) so the idea that his blog would be unincriminating if it were just a little less racist is short-sighted.
I meant in this very specific case were the journalist was asking about the meetups, a win as in, they could show that the complaints of people like us, that they encourage racists, and let the racists network, is false because they kick out the racists.
That is still fraught both because Scott is a racist and the whole thing that caused him to freak out is that the NYT is publishing his name which endangers his career. Also the guardian was capable of perpetuating the lie that Corbyn was antisemitic in the absence of all evidence and the NYT was able to pile the discovery of corroboration of Tara Reade’s sexual assault claims under mountains of praise of her assailant’s character (while also giving him editorial privilege over the article) so the idea that these people can simply demonstrate complaints to be false is beside the matter of what narrative corporate media decide to promulgate.

we should destroy the NYT

Where’s the lie?

We should re-educate the NYT in an institution led by Max Blumenthal.

At least nationalize the crossword section