I was a bit confused by this comment. I thought ācontroversialā commonly meant something more than just ācausing disagreementā, and indeed I think that seems to be true. Looking it up, the OED defines ācontroversialā as āgiving rise or likely to give rise to controversy or public disagreementā, and ācontroversyā as āprolonged public disagreement or heated discussionā. That is, a belief being ācontroversialā implies not just that people disagree over it, but also that thereās an element of heated, emotional conflict surrounding it.
So it seems to me like the problem might actually be controversial beliefs, and not exclusionary beliefs? For example, antinatalism, communism, anarcho-capitalism, vaccine skepticism, and flat earthism are all controversial, and could plausibly cause the sort of controversy being discussed here, while not being exclusionary per se. (There are perhaps also some exclusionary beliefs that are not that controversial and therefore accepted, e.g., some forms of credentialism, but Iām less sure about that.)
Of course I agree that thereās no good reason to exclude topics/āpeople just because thereās disagreement around themāI just donāt think ācontroversialā is a good word to fence those off, since it has additional baggage. Maybe ācontentiousā or ātendentiousā are better?
Yeah I just donāt think that what people are objecting to is that these beliefs are the subject of even heated disagreement. Iām not saying ādisagreement is fine, as long as itās not heatedā, Iām saying āeven heated disagreement is fine, but thereās some other distinction that makes it potentially a problemā, and while Iām not quite precise about what that other distinction is, itās something like, is this topic directly about some of the people in the conversation, and does it implicitly or explicitly threaten the legitimacy of their presence or their contribution?
I think vaccine skepticism is an interesting example, as I do tend to think conferences shouldnāt invite vaccine skeptics. But thatās more out of a sense that vaccine skeptics in practice are grifters /ā dishonest (which is no coincidence, in that the genuinely curious have mostly had their curiosity satisfied). I would be very happy to see someone speak about how the new malaria vaccines arenāt effective enough to be worth it, if they had good reasons for thinking that.
I donāt think people object to these topics being heated either. I think there are probably (at least) two things going on:
Thereās some underlying thing causing some disagreements to be heated/āemotional, and people want to avoid that underlying thing (that could be that it involves exclusionary beliefs, but it could also be that it is harmful in other ways)
Thereās a reputational risk in being associated with controversial issues, and people want to distance themselves from those for that reason
Either way, I donāt think the problem is centrally about exclusionary beliefs, and I also donāt think itās centrally about disagreement. But anyway, it sounds like we mostly agree on the important bits.
I was a bit confused by this comment. I thought ācontroversialā commonly meant something more than just ācausing disagreementā, and indeed I think that seems to be true. Looking it up, the OED defines ācontroversialā as āgiving rise or likely to give rise to controversy or public disagreementā, and ācontroversyā as āprolonged public disagreement or heated discussionā. That is, a belief being ācontroversialā implies not just that people disagree over it, but also that thereās an element of heated, emotional conflict surrounding it.
So it seems to me like the problem might actually be controversial beliefs, and not exclusionary beliefs? For example, antinatalism, communism, anarcho-capitalism, vaccine skepticism, and flat earthism are all controversial, and could plausibly cause the sort of controversy being discussed here, while not being exclusionary per se. (There are perhaps also some exclusionary beliefs that are not that controversial and therefore accepted, e.g., some forms of credentialism, but Iām less sure about that.)
Of course I agree that thereās no good reason to exclude topics/āpeople just because thereās disagreement around themāI just donāt think ācontroversialā is a good word to fence those off, since it has additional baggage. Maybe ācontentiousā or ātendentiousā are better?
Yeah I just donāt think that what people are objecting to is that these beliefs are the subject of even heated disagreement. Iām not saying ādisagreement is fine, as long as itās not heatedā, Iām saying āeven heated disagreement is fine, but thereās some other distinction that makes it potentially a problemā, and while Iām not quite precise about what that other distinction is, itās something like, is this topic directly about some of the people in the conversation, and does it implicitly or explicitly threaten the legitimacy of their presence or their contribution?
I think vaccine skepticism is an interesting example, as I do tend to think conferences shouldnāt invite vaccine skeptics. But thatās more out of a sense that vaccine skeptics in practice are grifters /ā dishonest (which is no coincidence, in that the genuinely curious have mostly had their curiosity satisfied). I would be very happy to see someone speak about how the new malaria vaccines arenāt effective enough to be worth it, if they had good reasons for thinking that.
I donāt think people object to these topics being heated either. I think there are probably (at least) two things going on:
Thereās some underlying thing causing some disagreements to be heated/āemotional, and people want to avoid that underlying thing (that could be that it involves exclusionary beliefs, but it could also be that it is harmful in other ways)
Thereās a reputational risk in being associated with controversial issues, and people want to distance themselves from those for that reason
Either way, I donāt think the problem is centrally about exclusionary beliefs, and I also donāt think itās centrally about disagreement. But anyway, it sounds like we mostly agree on the important bits.