Explain It To Aaronson
I recently gave my first public talk on Don’t Be a Feminist at the University of Texas. In audience: Living legend Scott Aaronson. After attending, he posed the following question:
How is it that I got denounced by half the planet for saying once, in a blog comment, that I agreed with 97% of feminism but had concerns with one particular way it was operationalized, whereas Bryan seems to be … not denounced in the slightest for publishing a book and going on a lecture tour about how he rejects feminism in its entirety as angry and self-pitying in addition to factually false? Who can explain this to me?
Anyone up to the challenge? Try your hand in the comments!
1) Scott, because he agrees with 97% and identifies with feminism, is seen as a “traitor”, whereas Bryan is simply an enemy (along with much of the country.) Traitors are always punished more harshly, and this even extends to how governments handle spies vs foreign soldiers.
2) Feminist activists know that, because of Scott’s identity and general agreement, he can be influenced and bullied. But Bryan, since he puts almost no weight on such activists’ opinions, can’t be — unless his livelihood can be jeopardized (which it mostly cannot be, due to tenure.)
It's clearly a case of Scott Alexander's outgroup. You're part of the red/grey tribe, so the blue tribe already knows they hate you. However, Aaronson is part of the blue/grey tribe, so the blue tribe punishes disloyalty.