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.
Aaronson is assuming that he is engaging with people who are interested in ideas. His haters were not that sort of human. They were the feminist equivalent of religious fanatics. They have hate in their heart, and they have a need to aim that hate at an enemy. Aaronson was a great target, because he said in his post that he felt shame. Fanatics are to shame as sharks are to blood in the water.
Caplan does not show evidence that he is ashamed, or even concerned that people will disagree with him, beyond an intellectual interest in hearing why people think he is wrong. For that reason, he is not an interesting target.
Smart people often make the mistake of thinking that other people think like them. The people who went after Aaronson are simply not smart enough to form a real argument. They are driven only by emotion. Show them that you feel negative emotions (shame, fear, envy, etc.) and they will attack you without mercy. Show them that they can't hurt your feelings, and they will find someone else to destroy.
I don't think you have a lot of readers within the sjw community, especially not very influential ones. Maybe if an sjw stumbles upon your posts by accident they could share it and the witch hunt will still come. It's too early to tell.
One thing that I have noticed though is that they often go harder after people that admit to guilt easily. Those who are unapologetic about their behavior are harder to punish. So maybe the fact that Scott considered himself a feminist made him an easier target.
Aaronson included a sad personal tale in his post about feminism. Feminists pounced on him for that because they (subconsciously, at least) felt he was trying to steal victimhood points from them. If your book had included anecdotes where you, for example, lost out on a promotion to a less qualified woman, you would also be perceived as stealing victimization points.
Feminism was a big deal when Aaronson was whining about it; anti-racism is now a bigger deal.
Also, years of woke overreach have anaesthesized people on both sides. Woke midwits are used to everyone hating them, normal people are used to polite denunciations of wokeness.
Sure: Scott is implicitly giving the feminist crowd moral authority by starting with all the ways in which he agrees with them. Bryan is doing no such thing, which forces them to either engage with his arguments or to ignore him. (Or to simply destroy him if they can, but they can't, either psychologically or professionally.) Scott is coming across as an insider, pleading for their acceptance and acknowledgement, giving them the upper hand. That approach might work with a group known for its mercy and compassion, like the peace churches (e.g. the Amish, Mennonites, Bruderhof, etc.), but most of the time the side on top will take it upon themselves to discipline the wayward member.
1) Aaronson was more pitiable in his comment than you were in the book. Thus, it was easier to sneer and mock him given that he published a heartfelt blog comment rather than a well argued book.
2) People get much more mad at the people that are 97% on board with their side than the people that totally disagree. I heard from someone that Bin Laden said at one point that he hated more than the Americans and anyone else the Shiites.
Scott’s audience is much different than Bryan’s audience. Coworkers, too, probably. If Bryan’s coworkers were the humanities professors of UC Berkeley, they would be putting pressure on him.
Ideas compete for particular niches, like religions. Christians don't schism from Buddhists - they schism from other Christians with very similar ideas, who compete for the same niche.
Leninists and Trotskyites are far more contentious than either vs. Royalists.
Scott's demeanour is a lot more nervous and anxious, and he admits how attacks negatively affect him. This means he is a juicy target, both for people who simply take delight in the suffering of others, and those who want their actions to have a significant effect and don't think too deeply about whether that effect actually results in good outcomes for their side or not.
First, Scott wasn't destroyed or anything, he was criticized, which in our times already is seen as equal to Stalinism.
Second, the reason was that he basically blamed feminism for not getting sex as if there is a right to sex and if feminism/women were to blame for him not getting sex and not just him having social anxiety like so many nerds (yes, I know he said that he didn't believe in a conspiracy to prevent him from getting sex, he just said how much he suffered from not having sex and how feminism doesn't acknowledge this suffering). It's the same reason why Robin Hanson was heavily criticized after he talked about redistributing sex. Blaming women for not getting sex is probably the root of misogyny, so people react more harshly to that.
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.
Aaronson is assuming that he is engaging with people who are interested in ideas. His haters were not that sort of human. They were the feminist equivalent of religious fanatics. They have hate in their heart, and they have a need to aim that hate at an enemy. Aaronson was a great target, because he said in his post that he felt shame. Fanatics are to shame as sharks are to blood in the water.
Caplan does not show evidence that he is ashamed, or even concerned that people will disagree with him, beyond an intellectual interest in hearing why people think he is wrong. For that reason, he is not an interesting target.
Smart people often make the mistake of thinking that other people think like them. The people who went after Aaronson are simply not smart enough to form a real argument. They are driven only by emotion. Show them that you feel negative emotions (shame, fear, envy, etc.) and they will attack you without mercy. Show them that they can't hurt your feelings, and they will find someone else to destroy.
I don't think you have a lot of readers within the sjw community, especially not very influential ones. Maybe if an sjw stumbles upon your posts by accident they could share it and the witch hunt will still come. It's too early to tell.
One thing that I have noticed though is that they often go harder after people that admit to guilt easily. Those who are unapologetic about their behavior are harder to punish. So maybe the fact that Scott considered himself a feminist made him an easier target.
Aaronson included a sad personal tale in his post about feminism. Feminists pounced on him for that because they (subconsciously, at least) felt he was trying to steal victimhood points from them. If your book had included anecdotes where you, for example, lost out on a promotion to a less qualified woman, you would also be perceived as stealing victimization points.
Feminism was a big deal when Aaronson was whining about it; anti-racism is now a bigger deal.
Also, years of woke overreach have anaesthesized people on both sides. Woke midwits are used to everyone hating them, normal people are used to polite denunciations of wokeness.
Sure: Scott is implicitly giving the feminist crowd moral authority by starting with all the ways in which he agrees with them. Bryan is doing no such thing, which forces them to either engage with his arguments or to ignore him. (Or to simply destroy him if they can, but they can't, either psychologically or professionally.) Scott is coming across as an insider, pleading for their acceptance and acknowledgement, giving them the upper hand. That approach might work with a group known for its mercy and compassion, like the peace churches (e.g. the Amish, Mennonites, Bruderhof, etc.), but most of the time the side on top will take it upon themselves to discipline the wayward member.
I think there were a few points.
1) Aaronson was more pitiable in his comment than you were in the book. Thus, it was easier to sneer and mock him given that he published a heartfelt blog comment rather than a well argued book.
2) People get much more mad at the people that are 97% on board with their side than the people that totally disagree. I heard from someone that Bin Laden said at one point that he hated more than the Americans and anyone else the Shiites.
Scott’s audience is much different than Bryan’s audience. Coworkers, too, probably. If Bryan’s coworkers were the humanities professors of UC Berkeley, they would be putting pressure on him.
Ideas compete for particular niches, like religions. Christians don't schism from Buddhists - they schism from other Christians with very similar ideas, who compete for the same niche.
Leninists and Trotskyites are far more contentious than either vs. Royalists.
Because Aaronson submits to the jurisdiction of bad people and Caplan does not.
Please take this as dispassionately as you can
Because Scott Aaronson is believed to have potential to influence the world with his thinking, which makes him a threat; while you are not
Scott's demeanour is a lot more nervous and anxious, and he admits how attacks negatively affect him. This means he is a juicy target, both for people who simply take delight in the suffering of others, and those who want their actions to have a significant effect and don't think too deeply about whether that effect actually results in good outcomes for their side or not.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/
They smelled blood
First, Scott wasn't destroyed or anything, he was criticized, which in our times already is seen as equal to Stalinism.
Second, the reason was that he basically blamed feminism for not getting sex as if there is a right to sex and if feminism/women were to blame for him not getting sex and not just him having social anxiety like so many nerds (yes, I know he said that he didn't believe in a conspiracy to prevent him from getting sex, he just said how much he suffered from not having sex and how feminism doesn't acknowledge this suffering). It's the same reason why Robin Hanson was heavily criticized after he talked about redistributing sex. Blaming women for not getting sex is probably the root of misogyny, so people react more harshly to that.