I think that the dismissive and insulting language is at best unhelpful—and signaling your affiliations by being insulting to people you see as the outgroup seems like a bad strategy for engaging in conversation.
The “content” here is that you refer to the funders you dislike with slurs like “techbro”. It’s reasonable to update negatively in response to that evidence.
It’s straightforwardly a slur – to quote Google’s dictionary, it is “a derogatory or insulting term applied to particular group of people”.
It’s not a term anyone would ever use to neutrally describe a group of people, or a term anyone would use to describe themselves (I have yet to see anyone “reclaim” “techbro”). Its primary conversational value is as an insult.
I’m also surprised by how strongly people feel about this term! I’ve always thought techbro was a mildly insulting caricature of a certain type of Silicon Valley guy
Even if it’s only a “mildly insulting caricature”, it’s still a way to claim that certain people are unintelligent or unserious without actually presenting an argument.
Compare:
“A small handful of incredibly wealthy techbros”
“A small handful of incredibly wealthy people with similar backgrounds in technology, which could lead to biases X and Y”
The first of these feels like it’s trying to do the same thing as the second, without actually backing up its claim.
When I read the second, I feel like someone is trying to make me think. When I read the first, I feel like someone is trying to make me stop thinking.
Priors should matter! For example, early rationalists were (rightfully) criticized for being too open to arguments from white nationalists, believing they should only look at the argument itself rather than the source. It isn’t good epistemics to ignore the source of an argument and their potential biases (though it isn’t good epistemics to dismiss them out of hand either based on that, of course).
I don’t see a dichotomy between “ignoring the source of an argument and their potential biases” and downvoting a multi-paragraph comment on the grounds that it used less-than-charitable language about Silicone Valley billionaires.
Based on your final line I’m not sure we disagree?
If people downvote comments on the basis of perceived ingroup affiliation rather than content then I think that might make OP’s point for them...
I think that the dismissive and insulting language is at best unhelpful—and signaling your affiliations by being insulting to people you see as the outgroup seems like a bad strategy for engaging in conversation.
I apologise, I don’t process it that way, I was simply using it as shorthand.
The “content” here is that you refer to the funders you dislike with slurs like “techbro”. It’s reasonable to update negatively in response to that evidence.
I’m sorry but can you please explain how “techbro” is a slur?
It’s straightforwardly a slur – to quote Google’s dictionary, it is “a derogatory or insulting term applied to particular group of people”.
It’s not a term anyone would ever use to neutrally describe a group of people, or a term anyone would use to describe themselves (I have yet to see anyone “reclaim” “techbro”). Its primary conversational value is as an insult.
I’m also surprised by how strongly people feel about this term! I’ve always thought techbro was a mildly insulting caricature of a certain type of Silicon Valley guy
Even if it’s only a “mildly insulting caricature”, it’s still a way to claim that certain people are unintelligent or unserious without actually presenting an argument.
Compare:
“A small handful of incredibly wealthy techbros”
“A small handful of incredibly wealthy people with similar backgrounds in technology, which could lead to biases X and Y”
The first of these feels like it’s trying to do the same thing as the second, without actually backing up its claim.
When I read the second, I feel like someone is trying to make me think. When I read the first, I feel like someone is trying to make me stop thinking.
Priors should matter! For example, early rationalists were (rightfully) criticized for being too open to arguments from white nationalists, believing they should only look at the argument itself rather than the source. It isn’t good epistemics to ignore the source of an argument and their potential biases (though it isn’t good epistemics to dismiss them out of hand either based on that, of course).
I don’t see a dichotomy between “ignoring the source of an argument and their potential biases” and downvoting a multi-paragraph comment on the grounds that it used less-than-charitable language about Silicone Valley billionaires.
Based on your final line I’m not sure we disagree?