First, Iâm pretty sure it is common lingo to have âcontroversialâ be used in the way it is in this article. If this were a news story in The New York Times, Iâd expect it would be much more likely to use the word âcontroversialâ than the word âexclusionaryâ.
If the New York Times and WSJ both had front-page stories about âConference draws attention for controversial speakersâ, Iâd expect this to be more about radical right-wing or left-wing beliefs than I would the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Yeah, and I mostly think this is a mixture of confusion and cowardice on their part, frankly. To the extent that they really believe the controversy is itself the problem, I think theyâre wrong. To the extent that theyâre saying âcontroversialâ because itâs unarguably literally true and allows them to imply âbadâ without having to actually say it, I think itâs an attempt to project a false neutrality, to take a side without appearing to take a side. Some react to that by saying âlet our neutrality not be falseâ, some by âlet us not project neutralityâ. Either way has more respect from me.
But I could imagine many ideas in this category. If there were a speaker talking about how to secure Taiwan, arguably Chinese nationalists would feel uncomfortable attending and argue that that is exclusionary. Many people are uncomfortable with basic ideas in effective altruism and might not attend conferences with prominent EAsâthey might argue that that EA is exclusionary.
Yeah, for sure I expect disagreement about whatâs exclusionary, and when we should stand by something even though itâs exclusionary. My main point was to point out that lots of disagreements arenât exclusionary, and choosing how we handle potentially-exclusionary discourse doesnât need to put any of that at stake. (Thereâs room to disagree with this distinction, but thatâs the distinction I was trying to draw.)
Yeah, and I mostly think this is a mixture of confusion and cowardice on their part, frankly. To the extent that they really believe the controversy is itself the problem, I think theyâre wrong. To the extent that theyâre saying âcontroversialâ because itâs unarguably literally true and allows them to imply âbadâ without having to actually say it, I think itâs an attempt to project a false neutrality, to take a side without appearing to take a side. Some react to that by saying âlet our neutrality not be falseâ, some by âlet us not project neutralityâ. Either way has more respect from me.
Yeah, for sure I expect disagreement about whatâs exclusionary, and when we should stand by something even though itâs exclusionary. My main point was to point out that lots of disagreements arenât exclusionary, and choosing how we handle potentially-exclusionary discourse doesnât need to put any of that at stake. (Thereâs room to disagree with this distinction, but thatâs the distinction I was trying to draw.)