This is a bit self-indulgent of me, but Iâm going to quote myself from the comments of the other post, because I think itâs relevant here too:
One aspect of the framing here that annoyed me, both in the OP and in some of the comments: the problem is not controversial beliefs, it is exclusionary beliefs. Here are some controversial beliefs that I think would pose absolutely no problem at this event or any other:
The many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Virus gain-of-function research creates more risk than it prevents.
Nuclear energy is a necessary part of the transition away from fossil fuels.
The problem with racism and transphobia is not that people disagree about them! The problem is that these beliefs, in their content on the object level, hurt people and exclude people from the discussion.
Letâs avoid using âcontroversialâ as a euphemism for âtoxic and exclusionaryâ. Letâs celebrate the debate and discussion of all controversies that threaten no-one and exclude no-one. Suggesting any of that is at stake is totally unnecessary.
(To the extent you want to upvote /â downvote this sentiment, maybe go do that on the original comment and not this one, unless that feels inappropriate somehow? idk, maybe Iâm overthinking this; I removed my own upvote from this post)
Can you expand a little more on ânot the racistsâ? Why not both?
Iâm happy to concede that thinking some people should be excluded is an exclusionary belief. If this comes down to excluding one set of people or the other, I feel much better about excluding people based on their beliefs and actions than I do about excluding people based on their genetics or other immutable characteristics.
I agree, but I donât think anyone involved here has advocated for excluding people from Manifest or ~anything else based on âgenetics or other immutable characteristicsâ?
It just seems Orwellian to describe âperson A doesnât want to associate with person B because of person Bâs beliefsâ as âperson B has exclusionary beliefsâ. Person A may or may not be justified, but obviously they are the one being exclusionary.
Agreed. There is a major difference between thinking someone should be deplatformed just because they have opposing views (e.g., pause AI vs. accelerationist, libertarian vs. communist) and thinking someone should be deplatformed because they promote discriminatory views.
Thereâs nothing inherently wrong with being controversial or outside of the Overton window. Many important ideas were once controversial, and many still are. But it is wrong to actively promote views that are racist, transphobic or sexist and to platform those who do. Not because these views are controversial, but because they go against creating a safe and welcoming environment for all.
That being said, I am not familiar with most of the speakers being discussed here, so I canât say whether the organizers made the right call or not with them. And I understand not every case is clear cut. But with Richard Hanania they clearly made a bad call in my opinion.
I agree that hurting people and excluding people is bad. As I wrote in the post, we take attendee safety seriously; if an attendee was acting to hurt another attendee, eg by making fun of a trans person for their choice of gender identity, we would not have sanctioned that at Manifest. We also try to make it clear that Manifest itself is inclusionary, open to anyone to attend, unlike conferences which aim for prestige such as EA Global.
I donât think that our attendees were toxic or exclusionary at Manifest; eg looking through the feedback form, we see few to no complaints of this sort. To the degree people use swear words as alluded to in the EA Forum post, itâs the first Iâm hearing about it; I imagine theyâre accurately representing what they encountered, but I think it may not paint a very accurate picture to those who were not in attendance.
I think people who would be hurt would be quite hesitant to contact community health personnel at the event, since the event organisers were the ones who invited the controversial guests, and a hurt person could be afraid that whoever theyâd contact might hold bigoted views themselves (I feel bad for having to say this out loud. Rest assured I am not accusing you or anyone else in the organiser team of anything here, Austin).
Anyone who might hear such discourse will understandably be discouraged from seeking recourse.
Iâm afraid that there really were quite a few toxic people present, and I have to say that I am a bit surprised to see you say otherwise.
I havenât seen the feedback form answers, and as far as I can recall didnât highlight these issues when I filled it, but I am also surprised that there were few to no complaints. Is this assessment based on a quick skim, or is it a result of more thorough processing?
For your next event, I encourage you to adopt an anonymous community health contact person contact form, where people can air out their grievances with much less anxiety.
ThanksâI think an anonymous contact person might make sense. Would you have contacted such a person during the course of your attendance at Manifest?
Hereâs our feedback form categories for what people said was the best and worst about Manifest. People really liked the conversations, other people, and speakers that were there; and generally disliked the overcrowding, lack of bathrooms, and difficulty of meeting new folks.
For worst things, hereâs the full list of what people said was worst in the categories of âpeopleâ, âedgy peopleâ, and âgender ratio/âdemographicsâ, along with their NPS score (âwould you recommend Manifest to a friend with similar interests?â). There were 15 responses in these categories, out of 234 feedback form respondants (at an event with ~600 total attendees)
A couple of these responses did make me feel like we missed the markâespecially 11 and 14. On one hand, I want to keep in mind that with a 600 person event, itâs near impossible to satisfy everyone, and trying to do so often invokes other tradeoffs; on the other, knowing that even a couple attendees felt this way makes me incredibly sad, and I want to provide a better experience in the future. Iâm glad that both respondents also highlighted that other people we invited were also some of the best parts of Manifest to them.
Thanks for taking the time to make a thorough reply.
Would you have contacted such a person during the course of your attendance at Manifest?
I probably would have. Some of the edgy takes were far beyond the pale, and I havenât really experienced such things in an in-person context. Having an anonymous form would increase a sense of trust if it is otherwise lacking.
I do suspect that you would be able to get a lot more data on this by asking about experiencing bigotry directly. I do get that it is probably too late for that now, and doing an extra survey for the attendees on this would be costly and would likely make this whole situation more stressful for everyone, but it is an option that can be taken.
It is very human to fail to mention something like this on a feedback form, especially if a typical experience with bigotry for this event is something like hanging out with an edgelord for an hour on day 2 and continuing with the rest of the conference perhaps slightly avoiding them (Iâm only guessing this is what a typical experience would look like, since we donât really have too much data to go on with when it comes to people who experienced bigotry at the events).
This is a bit self-indulgent of me, but Iâm going to quote myself from the comments of the other post, because I think itâs relevant here too:
(To the extent you want to upvote /â downvote this sentiment, maybe go do that on the original comment and not this one, unless that feels inappropriate somehow? idk, maybe Iâm overthinking this; I removed my own upvote from this post)
It seems to me like the people with exclusionary beliefs here are the ones demanding that people be excluded, not the racists.
Can you expand a little more on ânot the racistsâ? Why not both?
Iâm happy to concede that thinking some people should be excluded is an exclusionary belief. If this comes down to excluding one set of people or the other, I feel much better about excluding people based on their beliefs and actions than I do about excluding people based on their genetics or other immutable characteristics.
I agree, but I donât think anyone involved here has advocated for excluding people from Manifest or ~anything else based on âgenetics or other immutable characteristicsâ?
It just seems Orwellian to describe âperson A doesnât want to associate with person B because of person Bâs beliefsâ as âperson B has exclusionary beliefsâ. Person A may or may not be justified, but obviously they are the one being exclusionary.
Nobodyâs excluding people based on their genetics or immutable characteristics
I was assigned to female at birth and I happily go to conferences where there are people who have discussed the IQ differences between women and men.
People are deciding to not go to a place because somebody said something they disagreed about about their group.
That is people deciding not to attend an event based on beliefs, not genetics.
Agreed. There is a major difference between thinking someone should be deplatformed just because they have opposing views (e.g., pause AI vs. accelerationist, libertarian vs. communist) and thinking someone should be deplatformed because they promote discriminatory views.
Thereâs nothing inherently wrong with being controversial or outside of the Overton window. Many important ideas were once controversial, and many still are. But it is wrong to actively promote views that are racist, transphobic or sexist and to platform those who do. Not because these views are controversial, but because they go against creating a safe and welcoming environment for all.
That being said, I am not familiar with most of the speakers being discussed here, so I canât say whether the organizers made the right call or not with them. And I understand not every case is clear cut. But with Richard Hanania they clearly made a bad call in my opinion.
I agree that hurting people and excluding people is bad. As I wrote in the post, we take attendee safety seriously; if an attendee was acting to hurt another attendee, eg by making fun of a trans person for their choice of gender identity, we would not have sanctioned that at Manifest. We also try to make it clear that Manifest itself is inclusionary, open to anyone to attend, unlike conferences which aim for prestige such as EA Global.
I donât think that our attendees were toxic or exclusionary at Manifest; eg looking through the feedback form, we see few to no complaints of this sort. To the degree people use swear words as alluded to in the EA Forum post, itâs the first Iâm hearing about it; I imagine theyâre accurately representing what they encountered, but I think it may not paint a very accurate picture to those who were not in attendance.
I think people who would be hurt would be quite hesitant to contact community health personnel at the event, since the event organisers were the ones who invited the controversial guests, and a hurt person could be afraid that whoever theyâd contact might hold bigoted views themselves (I feel bad for having to say this out loud. Rest assured I am not accusing you or anyone else in the organiser team of anything here, Austin).
Anyone who might hear such discourse will understandably be discouraged from seeking recourse.
Iâm afraid that there really were quite a few toxic people present, and I have to say that I am a bit surprised to see you say otherwise.
I havenât seen the feedback form answers, and as far as I can recall didnât highlight these issues when I filled it, but I am also surprised that there were few to no complaints. Is this assessment based on a quick skim, or is it a result of more thorough processing?
For your next event, I encourage you to adopt an anonymous community health contact person contact form, where people can air out their grievances with much less anxiety.
ThanksâI think an anonymous contact person might make sense. Would you have contacted such a person during the course of your attendance at Manifest?
Hereâs our feedback form categories for what people said was the best and worst about Manifest. People really liked the conversations, other people, and speakers that were there; and generally disliked the overcrowding, lack of bathrooms, and difficulty of meeting new folks.
For worst things, hereâs the full list of what people said was worst in the categories of âpeopleâ, âedgy peopleâ, and âgender ratio/âdemographicsâ, along with their NPS score (âwould you recommend Manifest to a friend with similar interests?â). There were 15 responses in these categories, out of 234 feedback form respondants (at an event with ~600 total attendees)
A couple of these responses did make me feel like we missed the markâespecially 11 and 14. On one hand, I want to keep in mind that with a 600 person event, itâs near impossible to satisfy everyone, and trying to do so often invokes other tradeoffs; on the other, knowing that even a couple attendees felt this way makes me incredibly sad, and I want to provide a better experience in the future. Iâm glad that both respondents also highlighted that other people we invited were also some of the best parts of Manifest to them.
Thanks for taking the time to make a thorough reply.
I probably would have. Some of the edgy takes were far beyond the pale, and I havenât really experienced such things in an in-person context. Having an anonymous form would increase a sense of trust if it is otherwise lacking.
I do suspect that you would be able to get a lot more data on this by asking about experiencing bigotry directly. I do get that it is probably too late for that now, and doing an extra survey for the attendees on this would be costly and would likely make this whole situation more stressful for everyone, but it is an option that can be taken.
It is very human to fail to mention something like this on a feedback form, especially if a typical experience with bigotry for this event is something like hanging out with an edgelord for an hour on day 2 and continuing with the rest of the conference perhaps slightly avoiding them (Iâm only guessing this is what a typical experience would look like, since we donât really have too much data to go on with when it comes to people who experienced bigotry at the events).