Silicon Valley’s Safe Space
Given the rather enormous of time and attention spent on it, not to mention the vast amounts of heated debate it had already spawned, I&#x27;d sort of assumed the NYT would either publish a really, really solid article or (more likely) just spike it and try and forget the entire thing had ever happened. After all, given that the NYT was now so much a part of the story, writing anything good would be pretty hard.<p>But no, kudos to them, they found a third way: Just write a poorly written article that alternates between interjecting disconnected ideas and making vague attempts at guilt by association, and carefully ignore anything inconvenient.<p>&gt; He denounced the neoreactionaries, the anti-democratic, often racist movement popularized by Curtis Yarvin. But he also gave them a platform. His “blog roll” — the blogs he endorsed — included the work of Nick Land, a British philosopher whose writings on race, genetics and intelligence have been embraced by white nationalists.<p>So he denounced the works of <i>one</i> person who believes bad things, but he also linked to a <i>second</i> person, who may or may not believe bad things, but is liked by a <i>third</i> group of people who also believe bad things, so...logically...that must mean he actually does...support the first person? Despite denouncing them, because he <i>didn&#x27;t</i> link to them, which proves...something...?<p>It feels weird even writing this argument down. If you link to someone who supports X, then you&#x27;re actually supporting every other person who has ever supported X? Link to a pro-vegan website, you must support every terrible ideology that has had at least one vegetarian supporter?<p>What a depressing waste of everyone&#x27;s time.