Skimming the comments so far, I’d appreciate if people would keep the “Be kind” part of the forum norm trifecta more in front of their minds:
Be kind.
Stay civil, at the minimum. Don’t sneer or be snarky. In general, assume good faith. We may delete unnecessary rudeness and issue warnings or bans for it.
Substantive disagreements are fine and expected. Disagreements help us find the truth and are part of healthy communication.
This post touches on topics that are very emotionally difficult and controversial for many. I tentatively recommend that if you’re very angry or upset, it might be sufficiently difficult to be civil and charitable such that you might want to hold off on immediately engaging a lot in the comments here. Maybe first:
share your thoughts and feelings with friends,
write down your thoughts and what you want to share in this forum privatly, and
wait at least a couple hours until you feel less urgently angry and indignant and only then share your thoughts here.
(I downvoted a few comments because I think they failed to be charitable and/or civil. But as I think this specific topic is very difficult to deal with, I hope the downvotes will not generally discourage people from engaging in this forum as I believe they generally come with good intentions.)
I agree with the vibe of this but disagree with the specific advice, maybe? I think if we discourage people from commenting when they’re feeling strong emotions, we miss out on valuable information. You suggest waiting for a few hours, but first, I think emotional first reactions are information (it’s information if something makes people angry! info about the values of the EA movement, or about how bad Bostrom’s comments are, for example); and secondly, some people might just not come back, or they might never cease to be emotional about the issue. Communicating in the standard detached Forum way might just feel dishonest to them. This means that the consensus becomes skewed to those who are less emotionally-activated by the issue. So in situations like this, people who are more forgiving or who think it’s not that bad or who just have more muted emotions or more reserved communication styles will dominate the discussion.
Amber—I strongly disagree with this take. Almost everything that EAs try to talk about dispassionately and objectively could be talked about reactively and emotionally with great intensity, if we didn’t show enormous self-control and self-awareness -- and that would ruin the entire ethos and culture of EA Forum.
Everyone who really, deeply values animal welfare could react emotionally to every discussion of that topic. Every who really, deeply dreads global thermonuclear war could react emotionally to every discussion of that topics. And so on. The whole point of the EA movement is to try to grapple with extremely large-scale, high-stakes problems that most people can’t think about rationally or empirically, using reason and evidence as best we can.
There’s nothing intrinsically or uniquely emotional about race differences issues, apart from the current cultural context that racism in Western liberal academic cultures is uniquely stigmatized compared to every other moral failing in modern life.
“racism in Western liberal academic cultures is uniquely stigmatized compared to every other moral failing in modern life.”
According to the Collins Dictionary: “If someone or something is stigmatized, they are unfairly regarded by many people as being bad or having something to be ashamed of.” In essence, when you argue that racism is being unjustly singled out among a myriad of other moral failings, you are suggesting that it is not as important or as bad as it is made to be.
However, it’s crucial to understand the gravity and the pervasive nature of racism. Racism is not just a moral failing; it is a systemic issue that has been deeply ingrained in societies for centuries. It has tangible and detrimental effects on the lives of individuals, communities, and entire societies. It affects access to resources, opportunities, and justice, and it perpetuates inequality and division.
While it’s true that there are many other moral failings that deserve attention and rectification, the focus on racism does not imply that these other issues are less important or less harmful. Rather, the emphasis on racism is a reflection of its widespread impact and the urgent need for change.
Therefore, it’s not accurate or fair to say that racism is being unjustly singled out or stigmatized. Instead, the spotlight on racism is a necessary and justified part of the broader struggle for justice, equality, and moral integrity.
Racism’s Historical and Ongoing Impact: Racism has had a profound and lasting impact on marginalized communities, from slavery and colonization to modern-day systemic racism. Its effects are pervasive and long-lasting, affecting every aspect of life, from education and employment to health and housing. This is not to say that other moral failings are not important, but the scope and scale of racism’s impact make it a particularly urgent issue to address.
Racism is Systemic: Unlike many other moral failings, racism is not just an individual failing but a systemic one. It is embedded in our institutions, policies, and practices, making it much more difficult to eradicate. This systemic nature of racism makes it unique and requires a unique response.
Racism Affects a Large Number of People: Racism affects entire racial and ethnic groups, not just individuals. This means that the number of people affected by racism is potentially much larger than the number of people affected by many other moral failings.
Racism is Often Invisible to Those Not Affected: Unlike many other moral failings, racism can often be invisible to those who are not directly affected by it. This can make it more difficult to recognize and address, and may also contribute to the perception that it is being “uniquely stigmatized.”
Addressing Racism is a Matter of Justice: Given the historical and ongoing harm caused by racism, addressing it is a matter of justice. This is not about “stigmatizing” racism more than other moral failings, but about seeking to right historical wrongs and create a more equitable society.
Racism’s Intersectionality: Racism often intersects with other forms of discrimination, such as sexism, classism, and homophobia. This intersectionality means that addressing racism can also help to address these other forms of discrimination.
Discriminatory Lending Practices: Systemic racism is evident in the financial sector, where discriminatory lending practices have historically disadvantaged racial minorities, particularly Black communities. This practice, known as redlining, was a systemic way to enforce economic disparities that are still felt today.
These examples underscore the systemic nature of racism and its long-term impacts. It’s not just about individual acts of prejudice, but about systems and policies that perpetuate racial disparities. Therefore, the focus on racism in academic discussions and policies is not an unfair concentration, but a necessary effort to address these deeply ingrained injustices.
I find this comment pretty patronising, and echo Amber Dawn’s point about this leading to discussion only being accepted by those who are sufficiently emotionally detached from an issue (which tends to be people who aren’t directly impacted).
To me, this comment sounds like it is saying that if you are angry about this then you are being irrational, and should wait to calm down before commenting. Anger can be a perfectly rational response, and excessive tone policing can suppress marginalised voices from the conversation.
Thanks for the pushback (I also appreciated Amber’s response). I agree that there’s a risk of taking the direction of my comment too far, and I agree that anger is a fully valid emotion and it’s fully valid and informative/useful to communicate it here.
What I do still believe is that anger makes productive discourse more difficult, and I think that many comments here are cases of that happening. When I get angry, I’m less patient, I feel more like I’m in a fight and that I want to win an argument as opposed to understand the situation better and contribute my perspective to a shared process of understanding and decision-making. In case you’re familiar, in EA terms I think that anger moves me away from a “scout mindset” and towards a “soldier mindset”.
I’m currently not convinced that in this discussion, and in the EA forum in general, sharing emotions is discouraged to a degree that is worrying and discourages affected groups and individuals, and I’d be sad if that impression is false. What I see as discouraged is uncivility, uncharitability and snark, and I suspect it only seems like there are more downvotes for emotional comments because of the “anger → impatience” mechanism.
Skimming the comments so far, I’d appreciate if people would keep the “Be kind” part of the forum norm trifecta more in front of their minds:
This post touches on topics that are very emotionally difficult and controversial for many. I tentatively recommend that if you’re very angry or upset, it might be sufficiently difficult to be civil and charitable such that you might want to hold off on immediately engaging a lot in the comments here. Maybe first:
share your thoughts and feelings with friends,
write down your thoughts and what you want to share in this forum privatly, and
wait at least a couple hours until you feel less urgently angry and indignant and only then share your thoughts here.
(I downvoted a few comments because I think they failed to be charitable and/or civil. But as I think this specific topic is very difficult to deal with, I hope the downvotes will not generally discourage people from engaging in this forum as I believe they generally come with good intentions.)
I agree with the vibe of this but disagree with the specific advice, maybe? I think if we discourage people from commenting when they’re feeling strong emotions, we miss out on valuable information. You suggest waiting for a few hours, but first, I think emotional first reactions are information (it’s information if something makes people angry! info about the values of the EA movement, or about how bad Bostrom’s comments are, for example); and secondly, some people might just not come back, or they might never cease to be emotional about the issue. Communicating in the standard detached Forum way might just feel dishonest to them. This means that the consensus becomes skewed to those who are less emotionally-activated by the issue. So in situations like this, people who are more forgiving or who think it’s not that bad or who just have more muted emotions or more reserved communication styles will dominate the discussion.
Amber—I strongly disagree with this take. Almost everything that EAs try to talk about dispassionately and objectively could be talked about reactively and emotionally with great intensity, if we didn’t show enormous self-control and self-awareness -- and that would ruin the entire ethos and culture of EA Forum.
Everyone who really, deeply values animal welfare could react emotionally to every discussion of that topic. Every who really, deeply dreads global thermonuclear war could react emotionally to every discussion of that topics. And so on. The whole point of the EA movement is to try to grapple with extremely large-scale, high-stakes problems that most people can’t think about rationally or empirically, using reason and evidence as best we can.
There’s nothing intrinsically or uniquely emotional about race differences issues, apart from the current cultural context that racism in Western liberal academic cultures is uniquely stigmatized compared to every other moral failing in modern life.
“racism in Western liberal academic cultures is uniquely stigmatized compared to every other moral failing in modern life.”
According to the Collins Dictionary: “If someone or something is stigmatized, they are unfairly regarded by many people as being bad or having something to be ashamed of.” In essence, when you argue that racism is being unjustly singled out among a myriad of other moral failings, you are suggesting that it is not as important or as bad as it is made to be.
However, it’s crucial to understand the gravity and the pervasive nature of racism. Racism is not just a moral failing; it is a systemic issue that has been deeply ingrained in societies for centuries. It has tangible and detrimental effects on the lives of individuals, communities, and entire societies. It affects access to resources, opportunities, and justice, and it perpetuates inequality and division.
While it’s true that there are many other moral failings that deserve attention and rectification, the focus on racism does not imply that these other issues are less important or less harmful. Rather, the emphasis on racism is a reflection of its widespread impact and the urgent need for change.
Therefore, it’s not accurate or fair to say that racism is being unjustly singled out or stigmatized. Instead, the spotlight on racism is a necessary and justified part of the broader struggle for justice, equality, and moral integrity.
Racism’s Historical and Ongoing Impact: Racism has had a profound and lasting impact on marginalized communities, from slavery and colonization to modern-day systemic racism. Its effects are pervasive and long-lasting, affecting every aspect of life, from education and employment to health and housing. This is not to say that other moral failings are not important, but the scope and scale of racism’s impact make it a particularly urgent issue to address.
Racism is Systemic: Unlike many other moral failings, racism is not just an individual failing but a systemic one. It is embedded in our institutions, policies, and practices, making it much more difficult to eradicate. This systemic nature of racism makes it unique and requires a unique response.
Racism Affects a Large Number of People: Racism affects entire racial and ethnic groups, not just individuals. This means that the number of people affected by racism is potentially much larger than the number of people affected by many other moral failings.
Racism is Often Invisible to Those Not Affected: Unlike many other moral failings, racism can often be invisible to those who are not directly affected by it. This can make it more difficult to recognize and address, and may also contribute to the perception that it is being “uniquely stigmatized.”
Addressing Racism is a Matter of Justice: Given the historical and ongoing harm caused by racism, addressing it is a matter of justice. This is not about “stigmatizing” racism more than other moral failings, but about seeking to right historical wrongs and create a more equitable society.
Racism’s Intersectionality: Racism often intersects with other forms of discrimination, such as sexism, classism, and homophobia. This intersectionality means that addressing racism can also help to address these other forms of discrimination.
Discriminatory Lending Practices: Systemic racism is evident in the financial sector, where discriminatory lending practices have historically disadvantaged racial minorities, particularly Black communities. This practice, known as redlining, was a systemic way to enforce economic disparities that are still felt today.
These examples underscore the systemic nature of racism and its long-term impacts. It’s not just about individual acts of prejudice, but about systems and policies that perpetuate racial disparities. Therefore, the focus on racism in academic discussions and policies is not an unfair concentration, but a necessary effort to address these deeply ingrained injustices.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_mayer_racial-discrimination-in-the-auto-loan-market.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiWyoKan4uAAxVPjokEHZu3A40QFnoECBoQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1LcOmY7hyAvTSzFwLX6qwf
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/supmanual/cch/fair_lend_fhact.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiCvcKV9IuAAxXUJ0QIHQeCChMQFnoECA8QBg&usg=AOvVaw052K3my-40HyxPrS_Cqf6t
I find this comment pretty patronising, and echo Amber Dawn’s point about this leading to discussion only being accepted by those who are sufficiently emotionally detached from an issue (which tends to be people who aren’t directly impacted).
To me, this comment sounds like it is saying that if you are angry about this then you are being irrational, and should wait to calm down before commenting. Anger can be a perfectly rational response, and excessive tone policing can suppress marginalised voices from the conversation.
Thanks for the pushback (I also appreciated Amber’s response). I agree that there’s a risk of taking the direction of my comment too far, and I agree that anger is a fully valid emotion and it’s fully valid and informative/useful to communicate it here.
What I do still believe is that anger makes productive discourse more difficult, and I think that many comments here are cases of that happening. When I get angry, I’m less patient, I feel more like I’m in a fight and that I want to win an argument as opposed to understand the situation better and contribute my perspective to a shared process of understanding and decision-making. In case you’re familiar, in EA terms I think that anger moves me away from a “scout mindset” and towards a “soldier mindset”.
I’m currently not convinced that in this discussion, and in the EA forum in general, sharing emotions is discouraged to a degree that is worrying and discourages affected groups and individuals, and I’d be sad if that impression is false. What I see as discouraged is uncivility, uncharitability and snark, and I suspect it only seems like there are more downvotes for emotional comments because of the “anger → impatience” mechanism.