The current norm is that people have a right to not engage with a subject. It looks to me like this post disagrees with this norm. I base this on the following quotes:
Bostrom: It is not my area of expertise, and I don’t have any particular interest in the question. I would leave to others... pseudonym: …this reflects terribly on Nick...
People can lose their “right to not engage” by previously engaging and causing associated harms.
At a bare minimum, that section of the apology can be read as implying that both sides of a debate have valid points. But if you’re claiming non-engaged status, you should be careful to avoid giving both sides the aura of legitimacy without having done your due diligence.
To be clear, that part of the comment was talking about how I think the apology seems pretty poorly written as a PR statement, and not because I think Nick broke some norm I feel strongly about upholding.
That said, even if I take the view (that others do), that Nick should engage with the subject when he is making a public apology about the subject matter at hand, I don’t think it propagates the norm in a general context.
I basically agree with Jason here, and don’t understand why he’s being downvoted, even if people disagree.
If you are apologizing for a statement that is easily read to mean you believe white people are superior to black people (“I like this comment and think it is true”), and then in your apology you say something that’s easily read to mean:
“Well, are black people actually worth the same as white people? I leave that to experts to debate the question”
It’s not going to be interpreted as non-engagement.
What’s the damaging norm this post is propagating? I’m not asking Bostrom to engage with this subject.
The current norm is that people have a right to not engage with a subject. It looks to me like this post disagrees with this norm. I base this on the following quotes:
Bostrom: It is not my area of expertise, and I don’t have any particular interest in the question. I would leave to others...
pseudonym: …this reflects terribly on Nick...
People can lose their “right to not engage” by previously engaging and causing associated harms.
At a bare minimum, that section of the apology can be read as implying that both sides of a debate have valid points. But if you’re claiming non-engaged status, you should be careful to avoid giving both sides the aura of legitimacy without having done your due diligence.
To be clear, that part of the comment was talking about how I think the apology seems pretty poorly written as a PR statement, and not because I think Nick broke some norm I feel strongly about upholding.
That said, even if I take the view (that others do), that Nick should engage with the subject when he is making a public apology about the subject matter at hand, I don’t think it propagates the norm in a general context.
I basically agree with Jason here, and don’t understand why he’s being downvoted, even if people disagree.
If you are apologizing for a statement that is easily read to mean you believe white people are superior to black people (“I like this comment and think it is true”), and then in your apology you say something that’s easily read to mean:
“Well, are black people actually worth the same as white people? I leave that to experts to debate the question”
It’s not going to be interpreted as non-engagement.