Brad East, who I read because he had something interesting to say about social media a while ago, wrote about some NYT article in his post
NYT, guilt by association, and libraries:
The entire hit piece is structured this way. "Alexander might be an okay dude, but it's possible that his blog might have led some readers to Wrong Thoughts." What I cannot for the life of me understand is what it means for a fellow writer to think this, to have written this way. Does he really suppose the way authors and their works ought to be judged is by the sheer possibility that some readers might draw undesirable conclusions?
Wow! Sounds like a pretty bad hit piece, eh?
His reaction was so strong that I decided to read the
original NYT article. It was about the Slate Star Codex, a "Rationalist" blog. I looked for the "guilt by association" stuff. Here's what I found:
As he explored science, philosophy and A.I., he also argued that the media ignored that men were often harassed by women. He described some feminists as something close to Voldemort, the embodiment of evil in the Harry Potter books. He said that affirmative action was difficult to distinguish from “discriminating against white men.”
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.”
That's not guilt by association, dude. That is stuff Star Codex said himself, with little room for charitable interpretation. That's just guilt. (Yes, yes, it's only guilt if you take the "woke" stance that misogyny and racism are bad.) And that's a misleading post from Brad East.
This is the second theologian blog I've read that sounds intellectually honest, but turns out not to be. (The first is
this guy.) I have faith that this isn't always the case, though. If you know of a counterexample, drop them my way!