/lit/ - Literature

>>15805039
I don't think Scott ever lies about his opinions, except by omission. So he's exactly the kind of semi-SJ-critical liberaltarian he claims to be.
He either thinks IQ differences between races are plausible or that they are real. Like Caplan ( https://www.econlib.org/archives/2017/04/iq_with_conscie.html ), I can't imagine he draws extreme policy conclusions from that.
Ozy's response to that post was 'as if I would ever use the phrase "meta-level thought"'.

Medium-confidence prediction: whichever way the NYT thing ends is going to be an anticlimax.
The NYT publishes the article without his name or not at all, and publishes an apology or not, and he puts his blog back up, and nothing changes.
Or the NYT does publish the article with his name, and he either loses his job or doesn't, but doesn't have any more reason to keep his blog offline either way, so he puts it back up. If he loses his job or even becomes unemployable it'll be a shame but not catastrophic, he could easily gather enough donations to live on if they were actually necessary to support him. He has a huge following of rich nerds.
Or the NYT never does anything and SSC comes back after half a year or stays down forever.
The whole thing already had a place in his world view, so I don't think it's going to make him overhaul it. And I don't think he'd get much out of going woke.