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.
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.