I consider the article entirely fair. In fact, you will see that pretty much all I am doing in this thread is telling people to read the original article. Its treatment of SSC is evenhanded and, at times, downright glowing. It says everything I want to say more eloquently than I am able.
The only problem I have with it is the title.
That is only half the truth - you also called people monarchists and crackpots. You got flagged for doing that, rightly so.
You could bring your point across much better if you were to leave out the name-calling and pejorative language. Cade Metz would benefit from this advice as well.
I called the Reason article a misrepresentation and I called Eliezer Yudkowsky a crackpot. If you're going to criticize me for saying that, then why are you leaving the Reason article alone? Cade Metz did not engage in name-calling and didn't use any pejorative language, so why are you criticizing him?
Am I ineffective for saying that? Maybe. But I'm also right. I don't particularly mind if you dislike my tone.
Also, "monarchist" isn't an insult. It's the word we use for people who think we should have a king. People like the neoreactionaries who have a strange tendency to pop up in rationalist circles.
> It was also the epicenter of a community ...
An epicenter is the focus of a earthquake, which is associated with causing great damage and loss of life. Comparing a community to such an catastrophic event is a negative connotation. Is that not a pejorative in your eyes? Even if its not, its a way of making readers disliking said community without factual basis, which is not a very honest thing.
I will stop arguing here. If your view is that you and Cade Metz do not use pejorative language, then there is no common ground between us.
I use pejorative language and make no apology for it. You seem to dislike pejorative language but seem to make an exception for the pejoratives in the Reason article.
Cade Metz did not use any pejoratives. Everything he wrote was correct and presented in context. His coverage of SSC varied between measured and glowing. I do even vaguely understand how someone could take it as an attack. It is fair in its coverage of Scott Alexander and far kinder to the Rationalists than they deserve.