I want to open by saying that there are many things about this post I appreciate, and accordingly I upvoted it despite disagreeing with many particulars. Things I appreciate include, but are not limited to:
-The detailed block-by-block approach to making the case for both cancel cultureās prevalence and its potential harm to the movement.
-An attempt to offer a concrete alternative pathway to CEA and local groups that face similar decisions in future.
-Many attempts throughout the post to imagine the viewpoint of someone who might disagree, and preempt the most obvious responses.
But thereās still a piece I think is missing. I donāt fault Larks for this directly, since the post is already very long and covers a lot of ground, but itās the area that I always find myself wanting to hear more about in these discussions, and so would like to hear more about from either Larks or others in reply to this comment. It relates to both of these quotes.
Of course, being a prolific producer of premium prioritisation posts doesnāt mean we should give someone a free pass for behaving immorally. For all that EAs are consequentialists, I donāt think we should ignore wrongdoing āfor the greater goodā. We can, I hope, defend the good without giving carte blanche to the bad, even when both exist within the same person.
Rules and standards are very important for organising any sort of society. However, when applied inconsistently they can be used as a weapon to attack unpopular people while letting popular people off the hook.
Given that this post is titled āadvice for CEA and local groupsā, reading this made me hope that this post would end with some suggested ārules and standardsā for who we do and do not invite to speak at local events/āEAG/āetc. Where do we draw the line on ābehaving immorallyā? I strongly agree that whatever rules are being applied should be applied consistently, and think this is most likely to happen when discussed and laid down in a transparent and pre-agreed fashion.
While I have personal views on the Munich case which I have laid out elsewhere, I agree with Khorton below that little is being served by an ongoing prosecution-and-defence of Robinās character or work. Moreover, my commitment to consistency and transparency is far stronger than my preference for any one set of rules over others. I also expect clear rules about what we will and wonāt allow at various levels to naturally insulate against cancel culture. To the extent I agree that cancel culture is an increasing problem, the priority on getting this clear and relying less on ad hoc judgements of individuals has therefore risen, and will likely continue to rise.
So, what rules should we have? What are valid reasons to choose not to invite a speaker?
Itās a good question. Iāve thought about this a bit in the past.
One surprising rule is that overall I think people with a criminal record should still be welcome to contribute in many ways. If youāre in prison, I think you should generally be allowed to e.g. submit papers to physics journals, you shouldnāt be precluded from contributing to humanity and science. Similarly, I think giving remote talks and publishing on the EA Forum should not be totally shut off (though likely hampered in some ways) for people who have behaved badly and broken laws. (Obviously different rules apply for hiring them and inviting them to in-person events, where you need to look at the kind of criminal behavior and see if itās relevant.)
I feel fairly differently to people who have done damage in and to members of the EA community. Someone like Gleb Tsipursky hasnāt even broken any laws and should still be kicked out and not welcomed back for something like 10 years, and even then he probably wonāt have changed enough (most people donāt).
In general EA is outcome-oriented, itās not a hobby community, thereās sh*t that needs to be done because civilization is inadequate and literally everything is still at stake at this point in history. We want the best contributions and care about that to the exemption of people being fun or something. You hire the best person for the job.
Thereās some tension there, and I think overall I am personally willing to put in a lot of resources in my outcome-oriented communities to make sure that people who contribute to the mission are given the spaces and help they need to positively contribute.
I canāt think of a good example that isnāt either of a literal person or too abstractā¦ like, suppose Einstein has terrible allergies to most foods, just canāt be in the space as them. Can we have him at EAG? How much work am I willing to put in for him to have a good EAG? Do I have to figure out a way to feed everyone a very exclusive yet wholesome diet that means he can join? Perhaps.
Similarly, if Iām running a physics conference and Einstein is in prison for murder, will I have him in? Again, Iām pretty open to video calls, Iām pretty willing to put in the time to make sure everyone knows what sort of risks he is, and make sure he isnāt allowed to end up in a vulnerable situation with someone, because itās worth it for our mission to have him contribute.
You get the picture. Yāknow, tradeoffs, where you actually value something and are willing to put in extraordinary effort to make it work.
As I said in an earlier comment, I think we need to evaluate this on a case-by-case basis and ultimately make decisions based on a (rough) calculation of expected benefit vs expected harm of letting someone speak. So for me there isnāt really a standard āline on behaving immorallyā. For example, if someone has bad character but it is genuinely plausible they might come up cause X, then I reckon they should (probably) be allowed to speak.
So I donāt think actual ārulesā are helpful. General āreasonsā why we might or might not invite a speaker on the other hand are certainly helpful and I think Larks alludes to some in this post (for example the cause X point!).
I didnāt actually interpret Larkās post as trying to contribute to the āongoing prosecution-and-defence of Robinās character or workā, but instead think it is trying to add to the cancel culture conversation more generally, using Robinās case as a useful example.
I didnāt actually interpret Larkās post as trying to contribute to the āongoing prosecution-and-defence of Robinās character or workā, but instead think it is trying to add to the cancel culture conversation more generally, using Robinās case as a useful example.
Sorry, this is on me. The original draft of that sentence read something like āI agree with Khorton below that little is being served by an ongoing prosecution-and-defence of Robinās character or work, so Iām not going to weigh in again on those specific points and request others replying to this comment do the same, instead focusing on the question of what rules we do/ādonāt want in generalā.
I then cut the sentence down, but missed that in doing so it could now be read as implying that this was Larksā objective. That wasnāt intentional, and I donāt think this.
I want to open by saying that there are many things about this post I appreciate, and accordingly I upvoted it despite disagreeing with many particulars. Things I appreciate include, but are not limited to:
-The detailed block-by-block approach to making the case for both cancel cultureās prevalence and its potential harm to the movement.
-An attempt to offer a concrete alternative pathway to CEA and local groups that face similar decisions in future.
-Many attempts throughout the post to imagine the viewpoint of someone who might disagree, and preempt the most obvious responses.
But thereās still a piece I think is missing. I donāt fault Larks for this directly, since the post is already very long and covers a lot of ground, but itās the area that I always find myself wanting to hear more about in these discussions, and so would like to hear more about from either Larks or others in reply to this comment. It relates to both of these quotes.
Given that this post is titled āadvice for CEA and local groupsā, reading this made me hope that this post would end with some suggested ārules and standardsā for who we do and do not invite to speak at local events/āEAG/āetc. Where do we draw the line on ābehaving immorallyā? I strongly agree that whatever rules are being applied should be applied consistently, and think this is most likely to happen when discussed and laid down in a transparent and pre-agreed fashion.
While I have personal views on the Munich case which I have laid out elsewhere, I agree with Khorton below that little is being served by an ongoing prosecution-and-defence of Robinās character or work. Moreover, my commitment to consistency and transparency is far stronger than my preference for any one set of rules over others. I also expect clear rules about what we will and wonāt allow at various levels to naturally insulate against cancel culture. To the extent I agree that cancel culture is an increasing problem, the priority on getting this clear and relying less on ad hoc judgements of individuals has therefore risen, and will likely continue to rise.
So, what rules should we have? What are valid reasons to choose not to invite a speaker?
Itās a good question. Iāve thought about this a bit in the past.
One surprising rule is that overall I think people with a criminal record should still be welcome to contribute in many ways. If youāre in prison, I think you should generally be allowed to e.g. submit papers to physics journals, you shouldnāt be precluded from contributing to humanity and science. Similarly, I think giving remote talks and publishing on the EA Forum should not be totally shut off (though likely hampered in some ways) for people who have behaved badly and broken laws. (Obviously different rules apply for hiring them and inviting them to in-person events, where you need to look at the kind of criminal behavior and see if itās relevant.)
I feel fairly differently to people who have done damage in and to members of the EA community. Someone like Gleb Tsipursky hasnāt even broken any laws and should still be kicked out and not welcomed back for something like 10 years, and even then he probably wonāt have changed enough (most people donāt).
In general EA is outcome-oriented, itās not a hobby community, thereās sh*t that needs to be done because civilization is inadequate and literally everything is still at stake at this point in history. We want the best contributions and care about that to the exemption of people being fun or something. You hire the best person for the job.
Thereās some tension there, and I think overall I am personally willing to put in a lot of resources in my outcome-oriented communities to make sure that people who contribute to the mission are given the spaces and help they need to positively contribute.
I canāt think of a good example that isnāt either of a literal person or too abstractā¦ like, suppose Einstein has terrible allergies to most foods, just canāt be in the space as them. Can we have him at EAG? How much work am I willing to put in for him to have a good EAG? Do I have to figure out a way to feed everyone a very exclusive yet wholesome diet that means he can join? Perhaps.
Similarly, if Iām running a physics conference and Einstein is in prison for murder, will I have him in? Again, Iām pretty open to video calls, Iām pretty willing to put in the time to make sure everyone knows what sort of risks he is, and make sure he isnāt allowed to end up in a vulnerable situation with someone, because itās worth it for our mission to have him contribute.
You get the picture. Yāknow, tradeoffs, where you actually value something and are willing to put in extraordinary effort to make it work.
As I said in an earlier comment, I think we need to evaluate this on a case-by-case basis and ultimately make decisions based on a (rough) calculation of expected benefit vs expected harm of letting someone speak. So for me there isnāt really a standard āline on behaving immorallyā. For example, if someone has bad character but it is genuinely plausible they might come up cause X, then I reckon they should (probably) be allowed to speak.
So I donāt think actual ārulesā are helpful. General āreasonsā why we might or might not invite a speaker on the other hand are certainly helpful and I think Larks alludes to some in this post (for example the cause X point!).
I didnāt actually interpret Larkās post as trying to contribute to the āongoing prosecution-and-defence of Robinās character or workā, but instead think it is trying to add to the cancel culture conversation more generally, using Robinās case as a useful example.
Thanks for your response.
Sorry, this is on me. The original draft of that sentence read something like āI agree with Khorton below that little is being served by an ongoing prosecution-and-defence of Robinās character or work, so Iām not going to weigh in again on those specific points and request others replying to this comment do the same, instead focusing on the question of what rules we do/ādonāt want in generalā.
I then cut the sentence down, but missed that in doing so it could now be read as implying that this was Larksā objective. That wasnāt intentional, and I donāt think this.
(Retracted.)