My guess is that the crux between people disagreeing is typically closer to: “is this mostly a question of managing the details of how someone else ran an event, or is this mostly a question of appropriate social signalling?”
There is an object-level disagreement about what counts as unacceptable racism here, not just a meta-disagreement about norms. One person-I assume a rationalist but I don’t know that-in the main thread didn’t understand why I was offended by something they posted in which Hanania basically implied that the Civil Rights Act caused crime.
My guess is that the crux between people disagreeing is typically closer to: “is this mostly a question of managing the details of how someone else ran an event, or is this mostly a question of appropriate social signalling?”
There is an object-level disagreement about what counts as unacceptable racism here, not just a meta-disagreement about norms. One person-I assume a rationalist but I don’t know that-in the main thread didn’t understand why I was offended by something they posted in which Hanania basically implied that the Civil Rights Act caused crime.
I think it’s a bit tricky when we assume people who disagree with us are of the ‘opposing’ party.