I think my reply to Nathan Young fully addresses what you’re saying here.
Specifically:
I was deliberately vague when I said “low stakes” and “material harm”, and I think it’s good that [Nathan] pointed that out while still keeping it vague (“pretty valuable”). I did think about being specific instead, but an object-level discussion of the costs and benefits of the racism taboo would probably be a derail in this thread, even though they would indeed be crucial (cruxy, I mean) to a lot of the commenters arguing here.
Even though that object-level discussion might be good to have (in some other thread, probably not here), I don’t really expect anyone to change their mind from it. Seems like I should reiterate this part again:
I think that different people just have highly divergent Overton windows, and will have to agree to disagree, and will occasionally be excluded or alienated from one another’s events.
I think my reply to Nathan Young fully addresses what you’re saying here.
Specifically:
Even though that object-level discussion might be good to have (in some other thread, probably not here), I don’t really expect anyone to change their mind from it. Seems like I should reiterate this part again: