I think about the converse of putting someone on a pedestal ā completely disowning someone who violates some non-negotiable expectation of yours. For example, you might decide that someone, like Peter Singer, has some beliefs you find deeply objectionable, and therefore none of their views are worth taking seriously. Reflecting on my own behavior, Iāve noticed that I tend to scour the post histories of social media accounts before following them to see if theyāve posted anything in support of communist dictatorships.
To be sure, I find a lot of commonly held belief systems unconscionable ā including racism, transphobia, ableism, and Stalinism. But in a world where lots of people disagree on lots of things, it would be impractical for me to disavow everyone who holds an objectionable belief. John Stuart Millās On Liberty is the basis of the flavor of utilitarian liberalism that I subscribe to, yet Chapter 1 of the book asserts that some societies are ābackwardā and that ādespotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing withā them. Although I agree with the core argument of the book, I donāt need to agree with everything in it. I am capable of thinking critically about the book in its historical context ā it was written in 1859 at the height of the British Empire, and the backdrop of social attitudes has changed a lot between then and now.
Itās recently come out that the Extropians, the group on whose mailing list Nick Bostromās offensive email was published, was involved in some extremely offensive antics at MIT in the late ā90s, and offensive emails were par for the course on their email list. I probably wouldnāt disavow Nick Bostrom or his views entirely (nor anyone else who was involved in the Extropiansā problematic behavior who is now prominent in the EA movement). As your post says, people are complex, and for all I know, someone I think of as a good person right now could be doing something horrible unbeknownst to me. We need to make space for diverse people to participate in the movement, and we need to make space for people in the movement to mess up and be held accountable for improving. Both hero worship and its mirror image, the demonization of people who cause harm, are antithetical to these goals.
Itās good to stop putting individual people, books, and organizations in the EA movement on pedestals. But what if we stopped putting the community on a pedestal? Itās kind of disorienting, but it might be freeing, as we could individually embrace the ideas of EA without feeling the need to defend the EA movement as much. I havenāt thought as much about this.
But what if we stopped putting the community on a pedestal? Itās kind of disorienting, but it might be freeing, as we could individually embrace the ideas of EA without feeling the need to defend the EA movement as much.
This is well-expressed, and puts into words something Iāve been reflecting on a lot lately. One personās answer to the question āHow do we do the most good?ā does not always have to mean being deeply involved with other members of the community who are trying to answer that same question.
Thanks for this, I hadnāt thought about it but idolisation and demonisation do seem related forms of excessively binary thinking. It often seems that people who are prone to idolisation are also prone to demonisationāonce you fall off the pedestal you fall all the way.
Returning to this thread because my Forum Wrapped says itās my most upvoted comment this year š
This makes me think of a Linkin Park song that was written specifically to address the cycle of valorization and demonization in the public sphere, particularly of celebrities:
Weāre building it up To break it back down Weāre building it up To burn it down We canāt wait to burn it to the ground
You might say āthe pendulum swingsā between both extremes of this cycle.
This is beautifully written. Thank you.
I think about the converse of putting someone on a pedestal ā completely disowning someone who violates some non-negotiable expectation of yours. For example, you might decide that someone, like Peter Singer, has some beliefs you find deeply objectionable, and therefore none of their views are worth taking seriously. Reflecting on my own behavior, Iāve noticed that I tend to scour the post histories of social media accounts before following them to see if theyāve posted anything in support of communist dictatorships.
To be sure, I find a lot of commonly held belief systems unconscionable ā including racism, transphobia, ableism, and Stalinism. But in a world where lots of people disagree on lots of things, it would be impractical for me to disavow everyone who holds an objectionable belief. John Stuart Millās On Liberty is the basis of the flavor of utilitarian liberalism that I subscribe to, yet Chapter 1 of the book asserts that some societies are ābackwardā and that ādespotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing withā them. Although I agree with the core argument of the book, I donāt need to agree with everything in it. I am capable of thinking critically about the book in its historical context ā it was written in 1859 at the height of the British Empire, and the backdrop of social attitudes has changed a lot between then and now.
Itās recently come out that the Extropians, the group on whose mailing list Nick Bostromās offensive email was published, was involved in some extremely offensive antics at MIT in the late ā90s, and offensive emails were par for the course on their email list. I probably wouldnāt disavow Nick Bostrom or his views entirely (nor anyone else who was involved in the Extropiansā problematic behavior who is now prominent in the EA movement). As your post says, people are complex, and for all I know, someone I think of as a good person right now could be doing something horrible unbeknownst to me. We need to make space for diverse people to participate in the movement, and we need to make space for people in the movement to mess up and be held accountable for improving. Both hero worship and its mirror image, the demonization of people who cause harm, are antithetical to these goals.
Itās good to stop putting individual people, books, and organizations in the EA movement on pedestals. But what if we stopped putting the community on a pedestal? Itās kind of disorienting, but it might be freeing, as we could individually embrace the ideas of EA without feeling the need to defend the EA movement as much. I havenāt thought as much about this.
This is well-expressed, and puts into words something Iāve been reflecting on a lot lately. One personās answer to the question āHow do we do the most good?ā does not always have to mean being deeply involved with other members of the community who are trying to answer that same question.
Thanks for this, I hadnāt thought about it but idolisation and demonisation do seem related forms of excessively binary thinking. It often seems that people who are prone to idolisation are also prone to demonisationāonce you fall off the pedestal you fall all the way.
Returning to this thread because my Forum Wrapped says itās my most upvoted comment this year š
This makes me think of a Linkin Park song that was written specifically to address the cycle of valorization and demonization in the public sphere, particularly of celebrities:
You might say āthe pendulum swingsā between both extremes of this cycle.