Yeah I just donât think that what people are objecting to is that these beliefs are the subject of even heated disagreement. Iâm not saying âdisagreement is fine, as long as itâs not heatedâ, Iâm saying âeven heated disagreement is fine, but thereâs some other distinction that makes it potentially a problemâ, and while Iâm not quite precise about what that other distinction is, itâs 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 shouldnât invite vaccine skeptics. But thatâs more out of a sense that vaccine skeptics in practice are grifters /â 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 arenât effective enough to be worth it, if they had good reasons for thinking that.
I donât think people object to these topics being heated either. I think there are probably (at least) two things going on:
Thereâs some underlying thing causing some disagreements to be heated/âemotional, 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)
Thereâs a reputational risk in being associated with controversial issues, and people want to distance themselves from those for that reason
Either way, I donât think the problem is centrally about exclusionary beliefs, and I also donât think itâs centrally about disagreement. But anyway, it sounds like we mostly agree on the important bits.
Yeah I just donât think that what people are objecting to is that these beliefs are the subject of even heated disagreement. Iâm not saying âdisagreement is fine, as long as itâs not heatedâ, Iâm saying âeven heated disagreement is fine, but thereâs some other distinction that makes it potentially a problemâ, and while Iâm not quite precise about what that other distinction is, itâs 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 shouldnât invite vaccine skeptics. But thatâs more out of a sense that vaccine skeptics in practice are grifters /â 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 arenât effective enough to be worth it, if they had good reasons for thinking that.
I donât think people object to these topics being heated either. I think there are probably (at least) two things going on:
Thereâs some underlying thing causing some disagreements to be heated/âemotional, 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)
Thereâs a reputational risk in being associated with controversial issues, and people want to distance themselves from those for that reason
Either way, I donât think the problem is centrally about exclusionary beliefs, and I also donât think itâs centrally about disagreement. But anyway, it sounds like we mostly agree on the important bits.