Is āsocial justiceā ideology really the dominant ideology in our society now? My impression is that itās only taken seriously among young, highly-educated people.
Agreed that itās not dominant in society at-large, though I think it is dominant in a number of important institutions (esp. higher ed, the liberal nonprofit sphere, and journalism)
Those are the circles many of us exist in. So a more precise rephrasing might be āwe want to stay in touch with the political culture of our peers beyond EA.ā
This could be important for epistemic reasons. Antagonistic relationships make it hard to gather information when things are wrong internally.
Of course, PR-based deference is also a form of antagonistic relationship. What would a healthy yet independent relationship between EA and the social justice movement look like?
Maybe weāre just using the word ādominantā in different ways? I meant it in the sense of āmost important, powerful, or influentialā, and not something like āsincerely believed by the majority of peopleā which may be what you have in mind? (I donāt believe the latter is true yet.)
It makes sense that what is most important, powerful, or influential in national politics is still highly correlated with what most people in our society sincerely believe, due to secret ballot voting and the national scope, but I think in many other arenas, some arguably more important than current national politics (e.g. because they play an outsized role in the economy or in determining what future generations will believe), local concentrating of true believers and preference falsification have caused a divergence between the two senses of ādominantā.
Is āsocial justiceā ideology really the dominant ideology in our society now? My impression is that itās only taken seriously among young, highly-educated people.
Agreed that itās not dominant in society at-large, though I think it is dominant in a number of important institutions (esp. higher ed, the liberal nonprofit sphere, and journalism)
Those are the circles many of us exist in. So a more precise rephrasing might be āwe want to stay in touch with the political culture of our peers beyond EA.ā
This could be important for epistemic reasons. Antagonistic relationships make it hard to gather information when things are wrong internally.
Of course, PR-based deference is also a form of antagonistic relationship. What would a healthy yet independent relationship between EA and the social justice movement look like?
Cullen asked a similar question here recently. Progressives and social justice movement are definitely not the same, but thereās some overlap.
Maybe weāre just using the word ādominantā in different ways? I meant it in the sense of āmost important, powerful, or influentialā, and not something like āsincerely believed by the majority of peopleā which may be what you have in mind? (I donāt believe the latter is true yet.)
I donāt think the former is true either (with respect to national politics).
It makes sense that what is most important, powerful, or influential in national politics is still highly correlated with what most people in our society sincerely believe, due to secret ballot voting and the national scope, but I think in many other arenas, some arguably more important than current national politics (e.g. because they play an outsized role in the economy or in determining what future generations will believe), local concentrating of true believers and preference falsification have caused a divergence between the two senses of ādominantā.