There’s some view here where anything from the slightest bit racist to the most overtly racist is all the same. I think we can create distinctions and I hope we can avoid the most overtly racist things.
EAs have already been deplatformed over things like this.
I think what’s going on is that your definition of racist is different than many other people’s.
You would just consider them to have been rightly deplatformed for being racist, whereas I would consider them to have been silenced due to things where reasonable people can disagree.
I assure you, if Emile Torres ever turns their eyes on you, they’ll be able to find something in your writing history to make you look awful and you won’t be able to give talks at EAGs anymore.
I really don’t think—at all—that one’s ability to give talks at EAG is at all centrally based on whether Emile Torres has denounced you on Twitter or whatever. As I understand it Torres has gone after a long list of prominent EA figures for various reasons (including Nick Bostrom, Will, Toby, etc.) who continue to be quite involved.
(Disclaimer: I worked in events for CEA some years ago but was not involved with managing the admissions process for EAG, selecting EAG keynote speakers, etc. -- indeed I am not even sure who all is on that team at present.)
I don’t think there’s any equivalence between any of the things I have ever said and the most vile things that Hanania / Chau / Yarvin has said. I don’t think it’s a matter of finding quotes and misinterpreting them. They’re pretty blatant. I’m quite confident you could audit my entire writing history and I’d stand by that.
And people don’t have a right to a platform near me. It’s not like they’re losing their job. Or even their blog or their book deal or their platform somewhere else. I just don’t want them to be near me.
~
You would just consider them to have been rightly deplatformed for being racist, whereas I would consider them to have been silenced due to things where reasonable people can disagree.
I’m curious—is there anything for you that reasonable people couldn’t disagree? Anything someone could say that would make them worth deplatforming, in your mind?
is there anything for you that reasonable people couldn’t disagree? Anything someone could say that would make them worth deplatforming, in your mind?
Good question!
I think there are plenty of things where reasonable people can’t disagree on.
Like, if somebody said we should kill all of the people of ______ race/gender/____ist. Or committing actual physical acts of violence against somebody simply because of their race/gender/____ist.
The question of deplatforming is a separate thing. I think we should have a very strong prior towards letting people say whatever they want, wherever they want, unless there’s a very direct link between the words and causing physical violence.
It shouldn’t be based on whether the words are incorrect (because that’s an impossible standard and would silence almost all discourse) and it shouldn’t be based on whether it hurts people’s feelings (because that would incentivize using feelings as a way to censor people, and it would mean almost all political discussion would be banned).
What percentage of EA thinkers do you think would be deplatformed according to this standard?
My guess is that it would be over 70%, and it would even include yourself.
And it would end up being 100% over time, as what counts as racist / sexist / ____ist changes.
FWIW I’m quite confident it would be ~0%.
There’s some view here where anything from the slightest bit racist to the most overtly racist is all the same. I think we can create distinctions and I hope we can avoid the most overtly racist things.
EAs have already been deplatformed over things like this.
I think what’s going on is that your definition of racist is different than many other people’s.
You would just consider them to have been rightly deplatformed for being racist, whereas I would consider them to have been silenced due to things where reasonable people can disagree.
I assure you, if Emile Torres ever turns their eyes on you, they’ll be able to find something in your writing history to make you look awful and you won’t be able to give talks at EAGs anymore.
I really don’t think—at all—that one’s ability to give talks at EAG is at all centrally based on whether Emile Torres has denounced you on Twitter or whatever. As I understand it Torres has gone after a long list of prominent EA figures for various reasons (including Nick Bostrom, Will, Toby, etc.) who continue to be quite involved.
(Disclaimer: I worked in events for CEA some years ago but was not involved with managing the admissions process for EAG, selecting EAG keynote speakers, etc. -- indeed I am not even sure who all is on that team at present.)
I don’t think there’s any equivalence between any of the things I have ever said and the most vile things that Hanania / Chau / Yarvin has said. I don’t think it’s a matter of finding quotes and misinterpreting them. They’re pretty blatant. I’m quite confident you could audit my entire writing history and I’d stand by that.
And people don’t have a right to a platform near me. It’s not like they’re losing their job. Or even their blog or their book deal or their platform somewhere else. I just don’t want them to be near me.
~
I’m curious—is there anything for you that reasonable people couldn’t disagree? Anything someone could say that would make them worth deplatforming, in your mind?
According to you, what are the vile things Hanania / Chau / Yarvin have said?
Good question!
I think there are plenty of things where reasonable people can’t disagree on.
Like, if somebody said we should kill all of the people of ______ race/gender/____ist. Or committing actual physical acts of violence against somebody simply because of their race/gender/____ist.
The question of deplatforming is a separate thing. I think we should have a very strong prior towards letting people say whatever they want, wherever they want, unless there’s a very direct link between the words and causing physical violence.
It shouldn’t be based on whether the words are incorrect (because that’s an impossible standard and would silence almost all discourse) and it shouldn’t be based on whether it hurts people’s feelings (because that would incentivize using feelings as a way to censor people, and it would mean almost all political discussion would be banned).