I do know this, but I think if we are going to use talking points we should get to the bottom of them. So I wonder if “repeatedly platforming racists is accurate”.
Hanania has disavowed previously racist positions. I would agree in 2023, hence I spent a lot of work pushing against him being a speaker.
Anomaly is voluntary eugenicist. Not clear to me he is racist as that word is typically used. Does he advocate for animus towards people on the basis of race?
Chau plausibly is. I don’t particularly enjoy being the racism police, but I dislike Chau enough that I can’t be bothered to defend him
Khan, Hsu, I can’t find anything racist. Hsu is a voluntary eugenicist, I think.
I am not going to deal with unofficial afterparties.
I don’t love how Cremiux talks, but has he published anything racist? Looks like another volunatry eugencist to me. Mother Jones claims he has a racist reddit account, he claims not.
So is “repeatedly platforming racists” accurate? I tend to think no.
To me this looks more “genetic differences between races” and “parents should be able to genetically select their children”. I think that’s pretty meaningfully different to racism and if you want to make Manifest the racism conference you can try but personally I like there being a line between the two. I prefer for people to be able to discuss genetics, but not advocate for animus or lazy thinking about races, genders, etc. Hence I worked hard (and lost friends) pushing for Hanania not to be a speaker in 2023.
I am a bit sensitive about this, but I think it’s such a misplay from people close to EA to act as if any non-orthodox view on eugenics/crime/immigration is identical to racism. Personally, I think it’s not helpful for seeing the world as it is and makes it harder to push back actual racial abuse in spaces I care about. I think that this view has largely caused the right to act as if racism isn’t (and perhaps never was) real. And I think that’s probably bad.
but I think it’s such a misplay from people close to EA to act as if any non-orthodox view on eugenics/crime/immigration is identical to racism.
It’s probably a misplay from people close to EA to act like an article like this can’t be called racist because it contains several graphs, zero instances of the n word and the author denies ownership of the racist troll account linked to his name, home town and life story and the anecdote about how he burst into tears when his genetic tests revealed some level of black ancestry. You can be deeply committed to racism if your public profile doesn’t make Hanania seem like a moderate too .
Whose orthodoxy are we talking about anyway? I mean, the view that the delta between IQ scores of black people and white people is entirely down to genetics and extremely important is pretty unorthodox amongst geneticists and biologists, but it and associated views on immigration, twentieth century racism as rational response to black crime, the great evils of DEI etc are extremely orthodox on the racist right. A genuine heterodox thinker might conclude that racial disparities are unfortunately real and argue for extra DEI to correct for it, especially if they were also into the whole utilitarian EA thing. But even someone like Razib Khan who’s really not well-suited to being a white supremacist trots out the same old tired Charles Murray culture war tropes.
One area I do agree with you is that it would be unfortunate if someone’s vague genetic determinism got confused with the sort of person whose interest in genetic determinism manifests itself in blogging about how mad liberals are not to realise that racism is mainly down to black people’s IQ, simply because they happened to end up on a panel with them at a prediction markets conference. But that’s an argument in favour of generally avoiding platforming the sort of person whose research interests include proving the libs wrong about race and IQ, and especially against platforming mainly that sort of person on the topic of genetics. It’s not like one needs to have spicy views on the impossibility of racial equality (and conformance with the ultraconservative right in most other views) to be interested in biohacking, markets or altruism … if anything quite the opposite.
It’s not like one needs to have spicy views on the impossibility of racial equality (and conformance with the ultraconservative right in most other views) to be interested in biohacking, markets or altruism … if anything quite the opposite.
Yeah this feels kind of a solid point. I’ll think about it.
I do know this, but I think if we are going to use talking points we should get to the bottom of them. So I wonder if “repeatedly platforming racists is accurate”.
Hanania has disavowed previously racist positions. I would agree in 2023, hence I spent a lot of work pushing against him being a speaker.
Anomaly is voluntary eugenicist. Not clear to me he is racist as that word is typically used. Does he advocate for animus towards people on the basis of race?
Chau plausibly is. I don’t particularly enjoy being the racism police, but I dislike Chau enough that I can’t be bothered to defend him
Khan, Hsu, I can’t find anything racist. Hsu is a voluntary eugenicist, I think.
I am not going to deal with unofficial afterparties.
I don’t love how Cremiux talks, but has he published anything racist? Looks like another volunatry eugencist to me. Mother Jones claims he has a racist reddit account, he claims not.
So is “repeatedly platforming racists” accurate? I tend to think no.
To me this looks more “genetic differences between races” and “parents should be able to genetically select their children”. I think that’s pretty meaningfully different to racism and if you want to make Manifest the racism conference you can try but personally I like there being a line between the two. I prefer for people to be able to discuss genetics, but not advocate for animus or lazy thinking about races, genders, etc. Hence I worked hard (and lost friends) pushing for Hanania not to be a speaker in 2023.
I am a bit sensitive about this, but I think it’s such a misplay from people close to EA to act as if any non-orthodox view on eugenics/crime/immigration is identical to racism. Personally, I think it’s not helpful for seeing the world as it is and makes it harder to push back actual racial abuse in spaces I care about. I think that this view has largely caused the right to act as if racism isn’t (and perhaps never was) real. And I think that’s probably bad.
It’s probably a misplay from people close to EA to act like an article like this can’t be called racist because it contains several graphs, zero instances of the n word and the author denies ownership of the racist troll account linked to his name, home town and life story and the anecdote about how he burst into tears when his genetic tests revealed some level of black ancestry. You can be deeply committed to racism if your public profile doesn’t make Hanania seem like a moderate too .
Whose orthodoxy are we talking about anyway? I mean, the view that the delta between IQ scores of black people and white people is entirely down to genetics and extremely important is pretty unorthodox amongst geneticists and biologists, but it and associated views on immigration, twentieth century racism as rational response to black crime, the great evils of DEI etc are extremely orthodox on the racist right. A genuine heterodox thinker might conclude that racial disparities are unfortunately real and argue for extra DEI to correct for it, especially if they were also into the whole utilitarian EA thing. But even someone like Razib Khan who’s really not well-suited to being a white supremacist trots out the same old tired Charles Murray culture war tropes.
One area I do agree with you is that it would be unfortunate if someone’s vague genetic determinism got confused with the sort of person whose interest in genetic determinism manifests itself in blogging about how mad liberals are not to realise that racism is mainly down to black people’s IQ, simply because they happened to end up on a panel with them at a prediction markets conference. But that’s an argument in favour of generally avoiding platforming the sort of person whose research interests include proving the libs wrong about race and IQ, and especially against platforming mainly that sort of person on the topic of genetics. It’s not like one needs to have spicy views on the impossibility of racial equality (and conformance with the ultraconservative right in most other views) to be interested in biohacking, markets or altruism … if anything quite the opposite.
Yeah this feels kind of a solid point. I’ll think about it.