Being “pretty racist” with a past history of being even worse is not a mere “political issue.”
I don’t see how the proposition that Hanania has agreeable views on some issues, like factory farming contradicts David’s position that we should not treat him “as some sort of worthy figure” and (impliedly) that we should not platform him at our events or on our blogrolls.
There is a wide gap between the proposition that EA should seek to attract more “people who don’t hold typical Bay Area beliefs” (I agree) and that EA should seek to attract people by playing nice with those like Hanania.
Among other things, the fact is that you can’t create a social movement that can encompass 100% of humanity. You can’t both be welcoming to people who hold “pretty racist” views and to the targets of their racism. And if you start welcoming in the pretty-racist, you’re at least risking the downward spiral of having more racism-intolerant people like --> more openness to racism --> more departures from those intolerant to racism --> soon, you’ve got a whole lot of racism going on.
But I think that the modern idea that it’s good policy to “shun” people who express wrong (or heartless, or whatever) views is totally wrong, and is especially inappropriate for EA in practice, the impact of which has largely been due to unusual people with unusual views.
Why move from “wrong or heartless” to “unusual people with unusual views”? None of the people who were important to EA historically have had hateful or heartless-and-prejudiced views (or, if someone had them secretly, at least they didn’t openly express it). It would also be directly opposed to EA core principles (compassion, equal consideration of interests).
Whether someone speaks at Manifest (or is on a blogroll, or whatever) should be about whether they are going to give an interesting talk to Manifest, not because of their general moral character.
I think sufficiently shitty character should be disqualifying. I agree with you insofar that, if someone has ideas that seem worth discussing, I can imagine a stance of “we’re talking to this person in a moderated setting to hear their ideas,” but I’d importantly caveat it by making sure to also expose their shittiness. In other words, I think platforming a person who promotes a dangerous ideology (or, to give a different example, someone who has a tendency to form mini-cults around them that predictably harm some of the people they come into contact with) isn’t necessarily wrong, but it comes with a specific responsibility. What would be wrong is implicitly conveying that the person you’re platforming is vetted/normal/harmless, when they actually seem dangerous. If someone actually seems dangerous, make sure that, if you do decide to platform them (presumably because you think they also have some good/important things to say), others won’t come away with the impression that you don’t think they’re dangerous.
Why move from “wrong or heartless” to “unusual people with unusual views”?
I believe these two things:
A) People don’t have very objective moral intuitions, so there isn’t widespread agreement on what views are seriously wrong.
B) Unusual people typically come by their unusual views by thinking in some direction that is not socially typical, and then drawing conclusions that make sense to them.
So if you are a person who does B, you probably don’t and shouldn’t have confidence that many other people won’t find your views to be seriously wrong. So a productive intellectual community that wants to hear things you have to say, should be prepared to tolerate views that seem seriously wrong, perhaps with some caveats (e.g. that they are the sort of view that a person might honestly come by, as opposed to something invented simply maliciously.)
None of the people who were important to EA historically have had hateful or heartless-and-prejudiced views (or, if someone had them secretly, at least they didn’t openly express it).
I think this is absolutely false. A kind of obvious example (to many, since as above, people do not unanimously agree on what is hateful) is that famous Nick Bostrom email about racial differences. Another example to many is the similar correspondence from Scott Alexander. Another example would be Zack Davis’s writing on transgender identity. Another example would be Peter Singer’s writing on disability. Another example would be this post arguing in favor of altruistic eugenics. These are all views that many people who are even very culturally close to the authors (e.g. modern Western intellectuals) would consider hateful and wrong.
Of course, having views that substantially different cultures would consider hateful and wrong is so commonplace that I hardly need to give any examples. Many of my extended family members consider the idea that abortion is permissible to be hateful and wrong. I consider their views, in addition to many of their other religious views, to be hateful and wrong. And I don’t believe that either of us have come by our views particularly unreasonably.
What would be wrong is implicitly conveying that the person you’re platforming is vetted/normal/harmless, when they actually seem dangerous.
Perhaps this is an important crux. If a big conference is bringing a bunch of people to give talks that the speakers are individually responsible for, I personally would infer ~zero vetting or endorsement, and I would judge each talk with an open mind. (I think I am correct to do this, because little vetting is in fact done; the large conferences I have been familiar with hunt for speakers based on who they think will draw crowds, e.g. celebrities and people with knowledge and power, not because they agree with the contents of talks.) So if this is culturally ambiguous it would seem fine to clarify.
I think this is just naive. People pay money and spend their precious time to go to these conferences. If you invite a racist, the effect will be twofold:
More racists will come to your conference.
more minorities, and people sympathetic to minorities, will stay home.
When this second group stays home (as is their right), they take their bold and unusual ideas with them.
By inviting a racist, you are not selecting for “bold and unusual ideas”. You are selecting for racism.
And yes, a similar dynamic will play out with many controversial ideas. Which is why you need to exit the meta level, and make deliberate choices about which ideas you want to keep, and which groups of people you are okay with driving away. This also comes with a responsibility to treat said topics with appropriate levels of care and consideration, something that, for example, Bostrom failed horribly at.
I feel like you’re trying to equivocate “wrong or heartless” (or “heartless-and-prejudiced,” as I called it elsewhere) with “socially provocative” or “causes outrage to a subset of readers.”
That feels like misdirection.
I see two different issues here:
(1) Are some ideas that cause social backlash still valuable?
(2) Are some ideas shitty and worth condemning?
My answer is yes to both.
When someone expresses a view that belongs into (2), pointing at the existence of (1) isn’t a good defense.
You may be saying that we should be humble and can’t tell the difference, but I think we can. Moral relativism sucks.
FWIW, if I thought we couldn’t tell the difference, then it wouldn’t be obvious to me that we should go for “condemn pretty much nothing” as opposed to “condemn everything that causes controversy.” Both of these seem equally extremely bad.
I see that you’re not quite advocating for “condemn nothing” because you write this bit:
perhaps with some caveats (e.g. that they are the sort of view that a person might honestly come by, as opposed to something invented simply maliciously.)
It depends on what you mean exactly, but I think this may not be going far enough. Some people don’t cult-founder-style invent new beliefs with some ulterior motive (like making money), but the beliefs they “honestly” come to may still be hateful and prejudiced. Also, some people might be aware that there’s a lot of misanthropy and wanting to feel superior in their thinking, but they might be manipulatively pretending to only be interested in “truth-seeking,” especially when talking to impressionable members of the rationality community, where you get lots of social credit for signalling truth-seeking virtues.
To get to the heart of things, do you think Hanania’s views are no worse than the examples you give? If so, I would expect people to say that he’s not actually racist.
However, if they are worse, then I’d say let’s drop the cultural relativism and condemn them.
It seems to me like there’s no disagreement by people familiar with Hanania that his views were worse in the past. That’s a red flag. Some people say he’s changed his views. I’m not per se against giving people second chances, but it seems suspicious to me that someone who admits that they’ve had really shitty racist views in the past now continues to focus on issues where they – even according to other discussion participants here who defend him – still seem racist. Like, why isn’t he trying to educate people on how not to fall victim to a hateful ideology, since he has personal experience with that. It’s hard to come away with “ah, now the motivation is compassion and wanting the best for everyone, when previously it was something dark.” (I’m not saying such changes of heart are impossible, but I don’t view it as likely, given what other commenters are saying.)
Anyway, to comment on your examples:
Singer faced most of the heat for his views on preimplantation diagnostics and disability before EA became a movement. Still, I’d bet that, if EAs had been around back then, many EAs, and especially the ones I most admire and agree with, would’ve come to his defense.
I just skimmed that eugenics article you link to and it seems fine to me, or even good. Also, most of the pushback there from EA forum participants is about the strategy of still using the word “eugenics” instead of using a different word, so many people don’t seem to disagree much with the substance of the article.
In Bostrom’s case, I don’t think anyone thinks that Bostrom’s comments from long ago were a good thing, but there’s a difference between them being awkward and tone-deaf, vs them being hateful or hate-inspired. (And it’s more forgivable for people to be awkward and tone-deaf when they’re young.)
Lastly, on Scott Alexander’s example, whether intelligence differences are at least partly genetic is an empirical question, not a moral one. It might well be influenced by someone having hateful moral views, so it matters where a person’s interest in that sort of issue is coming from. Does it come from a place of hate or wanting to seem superior, or does it come from a desire for truth-seeking and believing that knowing what’s the case makes it easier to help? (And: Does the person make any actual efforts to help disadvantaged groups?) As Scott Alexander points out himself:
Somebody who believes that Mexicans are more criminal than white people might just be collecting crime stats, but we’re suspicious that they might use this to justify an irrational hatred toward Mexicans and desire to discriminate against them. So it’s potentially racist, regardless of whether you attribute it to genetics or culture.
So, all these examples (I think Zach Davis’s writing is more “rationality community” than EA, and I’m not really familiar with it, so I won’t comment on it) seem fine to me.
When I said,
None of the people who were important to EA historically have had hateful or heartless-and-prejudiced views (or, if someone had them secretly, at least they didn’t openly express it).
This wasn’t about, “Can we find some random people (who we otherwise wouldn’t listen to when it comes to other topics) who will be outraged.”
Instead, I meant that we can look at people’s views at the object level and decide whether they’re coming from a place of compassion for everyone and equal consideration of interests, or whether they’re coming from a darker place.
And someone can have wrong views that aren’t hateful:
Many of my extended family members consider the idea that abortion is permissible to be hateful and wrong. I consider their views, in addition to many of their other religious views, to be hateful and wrong.
I’m not sure if you’re using “hateful” here as a weird synonym to “wrong,” or whether your extended relatives have similarities to the Westboro Baptist Church.
Normally, I think of people who are for abortion bans as merely misguided (since they’re often literally misguided about empirical questions, or sometimes they seem to have an inability to move away from rigid-category thinking and not understand the necessity of having a different logic for non-typical examples/edge cases).
When I speak of “hateful,” it’s something more. I then mean that the ideology has an affinity for appealing to people’s darker motivations. I think ideologies like that are properly dangerous, as we’ve seen historically. (And it applies to, e.g., Communism just as well as to racism.)
I agree with you that conferences do very little “vetting” (and find this is okay), but I think the little vetting that they do and should do includes “don’t bring in people who are mouthpieces to ideologies that appeal to people’s dark instincts.” (And also things like, “don’t bring in people who are known to cause harm to others,” whether that’s through sexually predatory behavior or the tendency to form mini-cults around themselves.)
It seems to me like there’s no disagreement by people familiar with Hanania that his views were worse in the past. That’s a red flag. Some people say he’s changed his views. I’m not per se against giving people second chances, but it seems suspicious to me that someone who admits that they’ve had really shitty racist views in the past now continues to focus on issues where they – even according to other discussion participants here who defend him – still seem racist.
Agreed. I think the 2008-10 postings under the Hoste pseudonym are highly relevant insofar as they show a sustained pattern of bigotry during that time. They are just not consistent in my mind with having fallen into error despite even minimally good-faith, truth-seeking behavior combined with major errors in judgment. Sample quotations in this article. Once you get to that point, you may get a second chance at some future time, but I’m not inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt on your second chance:
A person who published statements like the Hoste statements over a period of time, but has reformed, should be on notice that there was something in them that led them to the point of glorifying white nationalism and at least espousing white supremacist beliefs. (I don’t care to read any more of the Hoste writings to be more precise than that.) An actually reformed white nationalist should know to be very cautious in what they write about Hispanic and African-American persons, because they should know that a deep prejudice once resided within them and might still be lurking beneath at some level.
The establishment of clear, sustained bigotry at time-1 would ordinarily justify an inference that any deeply problematic statements at later times are also the result of bigotry unless the evidence suggests otherwise. In contrast, it is relatively more likely that a deeply problematic statement by someone without a past history of bigotry could reflect unconscious (or at least semi-conscious?) racism, a severe but fairly isolated lack of judgment, or other serious issues that are nevertheless more forgivable than outright bigotry.
Appreciate the reply. I don’t have a well-informed opinion about Hanania in particular, and I really don’t care to read enough of his writing to try to get one, so I think I said everything I can say about the topic (e.g. I can’t really speak to whether Hanania’s views are specifically worse than all the examples I think of when I think of EA views that people may find outrageous.)
Under the pseudonym, Hanania argued for eugenics, including the forcible sterilization of everyone with an IQ below 90.[4] He also denounced “race-mixing” and said that white nationalism “is the only hope”.[6] He opposed immigration to the United States, saying that “the IQ and genetic differences between them and native Europeans are real, and assimilation is impossible”. He cited a speech by neo-Nazi William Luther Pierce, who had used Haiti as an example to argue that black people are incapable of governing themselves.[4]
I agree with you when you said that we can know evil ideas when we see them and rightly condemn them. We don’t have to adopt some sort of generic welcomingness to all ideas, including extremist hate ideologies.
I disagree with you about some of the examples of alleged racism or prejudice or hateful views attributed to people like Nick Bostrom and Scott Alexander. I definitely wouldn’t wave these examples away by saying they “seem fine to me.” I think one thing you’re trying to say is that these examples are very different from someone being overtly and egregiously white supremacist in the worst way like Richard Hanania, and I agree. But I wouldn’t say these examples are “fine”.
It is okay to criticize the views and behaviour of figures perceived to be influential in EA. I think that’s healthy.
Being “pretty racist” with a past history of being even worse is not a mere “political issue.”
I don’t see how the proposition that Hanania has agreeable views on some issues, like factory farming contradicts David’s position that we should not treat him “as some sort of worthy figure” and (impliedly) that we should not platform him at our events or on our blogrolls.
There is a wide gap between the proposition that EA should seek to attract more “people who don’t hold typical Bay Area beliefs” (I agree) and that EA should seek to attract people by playing nice with those like Hanania.
Among other things, the fact is that you can’t create a social movement that can encompass 100% of humanity. You can’t both be welcoming to people who hold “pretty racist” views and to the targets of their racism. And if you start welcoming in the pretty-racist, you’re at least risking the downward spiral of having more racism-intolerant people like --> more openness to racism --> more departures from those intolerant to racism --> soon, you’ve got a whole lot of racism going on.
+1
If even some of the people defending this person start with “yes, he’s pretty racist,” that makes me think David Mathers is totally right.
Regarding cata’s comment:
Why move from “wrong or heartless” to “unusual people with unusual views”? None of the people who were important to EA historically have had hateful or heartless-and-prejudiced views (or, if someone had them secretly, at least they didn’t openly express it). It would also be directly opposed to EA core principles (compassion, equal consideration of interests).
I think sufficiently shitty character should be disqualifying. I agree with you insofar that, if someone has ideas that seem worth discussing, I can imagine a stance of “we’re talking to this person in a moderated setting to hear their ideas,” but I’d importantly caveat it by making sure to also expose their shittiness. In other words, I think platforming a person who promotes a dangerous ideology (or, to give a different example, someone who has a tendency to form mini-cults around them that predictably harm some of the people they come into contact with) isn’t necessarily wrong, but it comes with a specific responsibility. What would be wrong is implicitly conveying that the person you’re platforming is vetted/normal/harmless, when they actually seem dangerous. If someone actually seems dangerous, make sure that, if you do decide to platform them (presumably because you think they also have some good/important things to say), others won’t come away with the impression that you don’t think they’re dangerous.
I believe these two things:
A) People don’t have very objective moral intuitions, so there isn’t widespread agreement on what views are seriously wrong.
B) Unusual people typically come by their unusual views by thinking in some direction that is not socially typical, and then drawing conclusions that make sense to them.
So if you are a person who does B, you probably don’t and shouldn’t have confidence that many other people won’t find your views to be seriously wrong. So a productive intellectual community that wants to hear things you have to say, should be prepared to tolerate views that seem seriously wrong, perhaps with some caveats (e.g. that they are the sort of view that a person might honestly come by, as opposed to something invented simply maliciously.)
I think this is absolutely false. A kind of obvious example (to many, since as above, people do not unanimously agree on what is hateful) is that famous Nick Bostrom email about racial differences. Another example to many is the similar correspondence from Scott Alexander. Another example would be Zack Davis’s writing on transgender identity. Another example would be Peter Singer’s writing on disability. Another example would be this post arguing in favor of altruistic eugenics. These are all views that many people who are even very culturally close to the authors (e.g. modern Western intellectuals) would consider hateful and wrong.
Of course, having views that substantially different cultures would consider hateful and wrong is so commonplace that I hardly need to give any examples. Many of my extended family members consider the idea that abortion is permissible to be hateful and wrong. I consider their views, in addition to many of their other religious views, to be hateful and wrong. And I don’t believe that either of us have come by our views particularly unreasonably.
Perhaps this is an important crux. If a big conference is bringing a bunch of people to give talks that the speakers are individually responsible for, I personally would infer ~zero vetting or endorsement, and I would judge each talk with an open mind. (I think I am correct to do this, because little vetting is in fact done; the large conferences I have been familiar with hunt for speakers based on who they think will draw crowds, e.g. celebrities and people with knowledge and power, not because they agree with the contents of talks.) So if this is culturally ambiguous it would seem fine to clarify.
I think this is just naive. People pay money and spend their precious time to go to these conferences. If you invite a racist, the effect will be twofold:
More racists will come to your conference.
more minorities, and people sympathetic to minorities, will stay home.
When this second group stays home (as is their right), they take their bold and unusual ideas with them.
By inviting a racist, you are not selecting for “bold and unusual ideas”. You are selecting for racism.
And yes, a similar dynamic will play out with many controversial ideas. Which is why you need to exit the meta level, and make deliberate choices about which ideas you want to keep, and which groups of people you are okay with driving away. This also comes with a responsibility to treat said topics with appropriate levels of care and consideration, something that, for example, Bostrom failed horribly at.
I feel like you’re trying to equivocate “wrong or heartless” (or “heartless-and-prejudiced,” as I called it elsewhere) with “socially provocative” or “causes outrage to a subset of readers.”
That feels like misdirection.
I see two different issues here:
(1) Are some ideas that cause social backlash still valuable?
(2) Are some ideas shitty and worth condemning?
My answer is yes to both.
When someone expresses a view that belongs into (2), pointing at the existence of (1) isn’t a good defense.
You may be saying that we should be humble and can’t tell the difference, but I think we can. Moral relativism sucks.
FWIW, if I thought we couldn’t tell the difference, then it wouldn’t be obvious to me that we should go for “condemn pretty much nothing” as opposed to “condemn everything that causes controversy.” Both of these seem equally extremely bad.
I see that you’re not quite advocating for “condemn nothing” because you write this bit:
It depends on what you mean exactly, but I think this may not be going far enough. Some people don’t cult-founder-style invent new beliefs with some ulterior motive (like making money), but the beliefs they “honestly” come to may still be hateful and prejudiced. Also, some people might be aware that there’s a lot of misanthropy and wanting to feel superior in their thinking, but they might be manipulatively pretending to only be interested in “truth-seeking,” especially when talking to impressionable members of the rationality community, where you get lots of social credit for signalling truth-seeking virtues.
To get to the heart of things, do you think Hanania’s views are no worse than the examples you give? If so, I would expect people to say that he’s not actually racist.
However, if they are worse, then I’d say let’s drop the cultural relativism and condemn them.
It seems to me like there’s no disagreement by people familiar with Hanania that his views were worse in the past. That’s a red flag. Some people say he’s changed his views. I’m not per se against giving people second chances, but it seems suspicious to me that someone who admits that they’ve had really shitty racist views in the past now continues to focus on issues where they – even according to other discussion participants here who defend him – still seem racist. Like, why isn’t he trying to educate people on how not to fall victim to a hateful ideology, since he has personal experience with that. It’s hard to come away with “ah, now the motivation is compassion and wanting the best for everyone, when previously it was something dark.” (I’m not saying such changes of heart are impossible, but I don’t view it as likely, given what other commenters are saying.)
Anyway, to comment on your examples:
Singer faced most of the heat for his views on preimplantation diagnostics and disability before EA became a movement. Still, I’d bet that, if EAs had been around back then, many EAs, and especially the ones I most admire and agree with, would’ve come to his defense.
I just skimmed that eugenics article you link to and it seems fine to me, or even good. Also, most of the pushback there from EA forum participants is about the strategy of still using the word “eugenics” instead of using a different word, so many people don’t seem to disagree much with the substance of the article.
In Bostrom’s case, I don’t think anyone thinks that Bostrom’s comments from long ago were a good thing, but there’s a difference between them being awkward and tone-deaf, vs them being hateful or hate-inspired. (And it’s more forgivable for people to be awkward and tone-deaf when they’re young.)
Lastly, on Scott Alexander’s example, whether intelligence differences are at least partly genetic is an empirical question, not a moral one. It might well be influenced by someone having hateful moral views, so it matters where a person’s interest in that sort of issue is coming from. Does it come from a place of hate or wanting to seem superior, or does it come from a desire for truth-seeking and believing that knowing what’s the case makes it easier to help? (And: Does the person make any actual efforts to help disadvantaged groups?) As Scott Alexander points out himself:
So, all these examples (I think Zach Davis’s writing is more “rationality community” than EA, and I’m not really familiar with it, so I won’t comment on it) seem fine to me.
When I said,
This wasn’t about, “Can we find some random people (who we otherwise wouldn’t listen to when it comes to other topics) who will be outraged.”
Instead, I meant that we can look at people’s views at the object level and decide whether they’re coming from a place of compassion for everyone and equal consideration of interests, or whether they’re coming from a darker place.
And someone can have wrong views that aren’t hateful:
I’m not sure if you’re using “hateful” here as a weird synonym to “wrong,” or whether your extended relatives have similarities to the Westboro Baptist Church.
Normally, I think of people who are for abortion bans as merely misguided (since they’re often literally misguided about empirical questions, or sometimes they seem to have an inability to move away from rigid-category thinking and not understand the necessity of having a different logic for non-typical examples/edge cases).
When I speak of “hateful,” it’s something more. I then mean that the ideology has an affinity for appealing to people’s darker motivations. I think ideologies like that are properly dangerous, as we’ve seen historically. (And it applies to, e.g., Communism just as well as to racism.)
I agree with you that conferences do very little “vetting” (and find this is okay), but I think the little vetting that they do and should do includes “don’t bring in people who are mouthpieces to ideologies that appeal to people’s dark instincts.” (And also things like, “don’t bring in people who are known to cause harm to others,” whether that’s through sexually predatory behavior or the tendency to form mini-cults around themselves.)
Agreed. I think the 2008-10 postings under the Hoste pseudonym are highly relevant insofar as they show a sustained pattern of bigotry during that time. They are just not consistent in my mind with having fallen into error despite even minimally good-faith, truth-seeking behavior combined with major errors in judgment. Sample quotations in this article. Once you get to that point, you may get a second chance at some future time, but I’m not inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt on your second chance:
A person who published statements like the Hoste statements over a period of time, but has reformed, should be on notice that there was something in them that led them to the point of glorifying white nationalism and at least espousing white supremacist beliefs. (I don’t care to read any more of the Hoste writings to be more precise than that.) An actually reformed white nationalist should know to be very cautious in what they write about Hispanic and African-American persons, because they should know that a deep prejudice once resided within them and might still be lurking beneath at some level.
The establishment of clear, sustained bigotry at time-1 would ordinarily justify an inference that any deeply problematic statements at later times are also the result of bigotry unless the evidence suggests otherwise. In contrast, it is relatively more likely that a deeply problematic statement by someone without a past history of bigotry could reflect unconscious (or at least semi-conscious?) racism, a severe but fairly isolated lack of judgment, or other serious issues that are nevertheless more forgivable than outright bigotry.
Appreciate the reply. I don’t have a well-informed opinion about Hanania in particular, and I really don’t care to read enough of his writing to try to get one, so I think I said everything I can say about the topic (e.g. I can’t really speak to whether Hanania’s views are specifically worse than all the examples I think of when I think of EA views that people may find outrageous.)
Wikipedia:
See this comment for a more detailed survey of Hanania’s white supremacy.
I agree with you when you said that we can know evil ideas when we see them and rightly condemn them. We don’t have to adopt some sort of generic welcomingness to all ideas, including extremist hate ideologies.
I disagree with you about some of the examples of alleged racism or prejudice or hateful views attributed to people like Nick Bostrom and Scott Alexander. I definitely wouldn’t wave these examples away by saying they “seem fine to me.” I think one thing you’re trying to say is that these examples are very different from someone being overtly and egregiously white supremacist in the worst way like Richard Hanania, and I agree. But I wouldn’t say these examples are “fine”.
It is okay to criticize the views and behaviour of figures perceived to be influential in EA. I think that’s healthy.