I am not yet convinced that changing the content of conversation in the ways mentioned above is either necessary or sufficient to bring more diverse voices into the community. I offer counterexamples below.
Changing content is not necessary to increase diversity – law schools have become more diverse without changing the content of their discussions. Most US law schools now have roughly 50-50 male-female gender ratios (https://www.enjuris.com/students/law-school-gender-ratio-2017.html) even though the first-year mandatory curriculum often asks students to consider arguments women might find uncomfortable (e.g., what proof should we require raped women to show before we convict the alleged rapist, should battered women acting in self-defense be treated the same as other people acting in self-defense).
Changing content is not sufficient to increase diversity – the Young Adult Fiction Twitter community is intolerant and toxic (often towards members of underrepresented groups) even though it cares deeply about principles similar to those mentioned above (https://www.vulture.com/2017/08/the-toxic-drama-of-ya-twitter.html).
My priors: I am a woman, a POC, and from a developing country, and I suspect I generally have similar opinions as the writers of this post about the topics mentioned under “Example topics.” I also believe that (usually) the best way to fight bad free speech is with good free speech.
I think your examples highlight a difference between barriers to entry rather than the amount of alienating conversations.
With twitter almost anyone can take part anonymously whereas to get into law school you probably have to take part in interviews/get references where you don’t alienate people.
The law school example seems like weak evidence to me, since the topics mentioned are essential to practicing law, whereas most of the suggested “topics to avoid” are absolutely irrelevant to EA. Women who want to practice law are presumably willing to engage these topics as a necessary step towards achieving their goal. However, I don’t see why women who want to effectively do good would be willing to (or expected to) engage with irrelevant arguments they find uncomfortable or toxic.
If the topics to avoid are irrelevant to EA, it seems preferable to argue that these topics shouldn’t be discussed because they are irrelevant than to argue that they shouldn’t be discussed because they are offensive. In general, justifications for limiting discourse that appeal to epistemic considerations (such as bans on off-topic discussions) appear to generate less division and polarization than justifications that appeal to moral considerations.
I don’t mind when people talk about off-topic subjects in casual EA spaces (machine doggo) as long as it’s not harmful. I think it’s a good thing for people to have social spaces and to bond over things that aren’t intense philosophical discussions!
I also don’t mind if people talk about painful and difficult subjects as long they’ve tried to minimize the harm and the conversation is genuinely useful.
I do mind if people casually bring up hurtful topics which provide no discernable gain to the community.
I am not yet convinced that changing the content of conversation in the ways mentioned above is either necessary or sufficient to bring more diverse voices into the community. I offer counterexamples below.
Changing content is not necessary to increase diversity – law schools have become more diverse without changing the content of their discussions. Most US law schools now have roughly 50-50 male-female gender ratios (https://www.enjuris.com/students/law-school-gender-ratio-2017.html) even though the first-year mandatory curriculum often asks students to consider arguments women might find uncomfortable (e.g., what proof should we require raped women to show before we convict the alleged rapist, should battered women acting in self-defense be treated the same as other people acting in self-defense).
Changing content is not sufficient to increase diversity – the Young Adult Fiction Twitter community is intolerant and toxic (often towards members of underrepresented groups) even though it cares deeply about principles similar to those mentioned above (https://www.vulture.com/2017/08/the-toxic-drama-of-ya-twitter.html).
My priors: I am a woman, a POC, and from a developing country, and I suspect I generally have similar opinions as the writers of this post about the topics mentioned under “Example topics.” I also believe that (usually) the best way to fight bad free speech is with good free speech.
Necessity/sufficiency tests are too narrow. Aid is neither necessary nor sufficient to end poverty, but we do it anyway.
I think your examples highlight a difference between barriers to entry rather than the amount of alienating conversations.
With twitter almost anyone can take part anonymously whereas to get into law school you probably have to take part in interviews/get references where you don’t alienate people.
The law school example seems like weak evidence to me, since the topics mentioned are essential to practicing law, whereas most of the suggested “topics to avoid” are absolutely irrelevant to EA. Women who want to practice law are presumably willing to engage these topics as a necessary step towards achieving their goal. However, I don’t see why women who want to effectively do good would be willing to (or expected to) engage with irrelevant arguments they find uncomfortable or toxic.
If the topics to avoid are irrelevant to EA, it seems preferable to argue that these topics shouldn’t be discussed because they are irrelevant than to argue that they shouldn’t be discussed because they are offensive. In general, justifications for limiting discourse that appeal to epistemic considerations (such as bans on off-topic discussions) appear to generate less division and polarization than justifications that appeal to moral considerations.
I don’t mind when people talk about off-topic subjects in casual EA spaces (machine doggo) as long as it’s not harmful. I think it’s a good thing for people to have social spaces and to bond over things that aren’t intense philosophical discussions!
I also don’t mind if people talk about painful and difficult subjects as long they’ve tried to minimize the harm and the conversation is genuinely useful.
I do mind if people casually bring up hurtful topics which provide no discernable gain to the community.