I urge those who are concerned about cancel culture to think more strategically. For instance, why has cancel culture taken over almost all intellectual and cultural institutions? What can EA do to fight it that those other institutions couldn’t do, or didn’t think of? Although I upvoted this post for trying to fight the good fight, I really doubt that what it suggests is going to be enough in the long run.
Although the post includes a section titled “The Nature of Cancel Culture”, it seems silent on the social/political dynamics driving cancel culture’s quick and widespread adoption. To make an analogy, it’s like trying to defend a group of people against an infectious disease that has already become a pandemic among the wider society, without understanding its mechanism of infection, and hoping to make do with just common sense hygiene.
In one particularly striking example, I came across this article about a former head of the ACLU. It talks about how the ACLU has been retreating from its free speech principles, and includes this sentence:
But the ACLU has also waded into partisan political issues, at precisely the same time as it was retreating on First Amendment issues.
Does it not seem like EA is going down the same path, and for probably similar reasons? If even the ACLU couldn’t resist the pull of contemporary leftist ideology and its attending abandonment of free speech, why do you think EA could, absent some truly creative and strategic thinking?
(To be clear, I don’t have much confidence that sufficiently effective strategic ideas for defending EA against cancel culture actually exist or can be found by ordinary human minds in time to make a difference. But I see even less hope if no one tries.)
This comment expresses something I was considering saying, but more clearly than I could. I would add that thinking strategically about this cultural phenomenon involves not only trying to understand its mechanism of action, but also coming up with frameworks for deciding what tradeoffs to make in response to it. I am personally very disturbed by the potential of cancel culture to undermine or destroy EA, and my natural reaction is to believe that we should stand firm and make no concessions to it, as well as to upvote posts and comments that express this sentiment. This is not, however, a position I feel I can endorse on reflection: it seems instead that protecting our movement against this risk involves striking a difficult and delicate balance between excessive and insufficient relaxation of our epistemic standards. By giving in too much the EA movement risks relinquishing its core principles, but by giving in too little the movement risks ruining its reputation. Unfortunately, I suspect that an open discussion of this issue may itself pose a reputational risk, and in fact I’m not sure it’s even a good idea to have public posts like the one this comment is responding to, however much I agree with it.
I would add that thinking strategically about this cultural phenomenon involves not only trying to understand its mechanism of action, but also coming up with frameworks for deciding what tradeoffs to make in response to it. I am personally very disturbed by the potential of cancel culture to undermine or destroy EA, and my natural reaction is to believe that we should stand firm and make no concessions to it, as well as to upvote posts and comments that express this sentiment. This is not, however, a position I feel I can endorse on reflection[...]
This seems right to me, and I upvoted to support (something like) this statement. I think there’s a great deal of danger in both directions here.
(Not just for reputational reasons. I also think that there are lots of SJ-aligned – but very sincere – EAs who are feeling pretty alienated from anti-CC EAs right now, and it would be very bad to lose them.)
It seems instead that protecting our movement against this risk involves striking a difficult and delicate balance between excessive and insufficient relaxation of our epistemic standards. By giving in too much the EA movement risks relinquishing its core principles, but by giving in too little the movement risks ruining its reputation.
The epistemic standards seem totally core to EA to me. If we relax much at all on those I think the expected future value of EA falls quite dramatically. The question to me is whether we can relax/alter our discourse norms without compromising those standards.
Unfortunately, it seems that an open discussion of this issue may itself pose a reputational risk, and in fact I’m not sure it’s even a good idea to have public posts like the one this comment is responding to, however much I agree with it.
I sympathise with this, but I think if we don’t have public posts like this one, the outcome is more-or-less decided in advance. If everyone who thinks something is bad remains silent for the sake of reputational harm, the discourse in the movement will be completely dominated by those who disagree with them, while those who would agree with them become alienated and discouraged. This will in turn determine who engages with the movement, and how it evolves in relation to that idea in the future.
If that outcome (in this case, broad adoption of the kinds of norms that give rise to cancel culture within EA) is unacceptable, some degree of public opposition is necessary.
I sympathise with this, but I think if we don’t have public posts like this one, the outcome is more-or-less decided in advance.
Yes, I agree. What I’m uncertain about is whether it’s desirable to have more of these posts at the current margin. And to be clear: by saying I’m uncertain whether it’s a good idea, I don’t mean to suggest it’s not a good idea; I’m simply agnostic.
I disagree. Trump draws his power from the Red Tribe; the Blues can’t cancel him because they don’t have leverage over him.
We, by contrast, are mostly either Blues ourselves or embedded in Blue communities.
Can you give an example of someone or some community in a situation like ours, that adopted a strategy of thoroughgoing shamelessness, and that successfully avoided cancellation?
Agree that the Blues can’t cancel Trump. Note that being affiliated with Red Tribe isn’t sufficient to avoid cancellation (though it probably helps) – see Petraeus, see the Republicans on these lists: 1, 2
Jordan Peterson seems basically impossible to cancel due to a combination of his shamelessness & his virtue (he isn’t really Blue Tribe though). Same for Joe Rogan and Tyler Cowen.
Jordan Peterson is probably indeed a good example. A more objective way to describe his demeanor than shamelessness is “not giving in”. One major reason why he seems to be popular is his perceived willingness to stick to controversial claims. In turn that popularity is some form of protection against attempts to get him to resign from his position at the University of Toronto.
However, I think that there are significant differences between Peterson and EA’s situation, so Peterson’s example is not my endorsement of a “shamelessness” strategy.
I urge those who are concerned about cancel culture to think more strategically. For instance, why has cancel culture taken over almost all intellectual and cultural institutions? What can EA do to fight it that those other institutions couldn’t do, or didn’t think of? Although I upvoted this post for trying to fight the good fight, I really doubt that what it suggests is going to be enough in the long run.
Although the post includes a section titled “The Nature of Cancel Culture”, it seems silent on the social/political dynamics driving cancel culture’s quick and widespread adoption. To make an analogy, it’s like trying to defend a group of people against an infectious disease that has already become a pandemic among the wider society, without understanding its mechanism of infection, and hoping to make do with just common sense hygiene.
In one particularly striking example, I came across this article about a former head of the ACLU. It talks about how the ACLU has been retreating from its free speech principles, and includes this sentence:
Does it not seem like EA is going down the same path, and for probably similar reasons? If even the ACLU couldn’t resist the pull of contemporary leftist ideology and its attending abandonment of free speech, why do you think EA could, absent some truly creative and strategic thinking?
(To be clear, I don’t have much confidence that sufficiently effective strategic ideas for defending EA against cancel culture actually exist or can be found by ordinary human minds in time to make a difference. But I see even less hope if no one tries.)
This comment expresses something I was considering saying, but more clearly than I could. I would add that thinking strategically about this cultural phenomenon involves not only trying to understand its mechanism of action, but also coming up with frameworks for deciding what tradeoffs to make in response to it. I am personally very disturbed by the potential of cancel culture to undermine or destroy EA, and my natural reaction is to believe that we should stand firm and make no concessions to it, as well as to upvote posts and comments that express this sentiment. This is not, however, a position I feel I can endorse on reflection: it seems instead that protecting our movement against this risk involves striking a difficult and delicate balance between excessive and insufficient relaxation of our epistemic standards. By giving in too much the EA movement risks relinquishing its core principles, but by giving in too little the movement risks ruining its reputation. Unfortunately, I suspect that an open discussion of this issue may itself pose a reputational risk, and in fact I’m not sure it’s even a good idea to have public posts like the one this comment is responding to, however much I agree with it.
This seems right to me, and I upvoted to support (something like) this statement. I think there’s a great deal of danger in both directions here.
(Not just for reputational reasons. I also think that there are lots of SJ-aligned – but very sincere – EAs who are feeling pretty alienated from anti-CC EAs right now, and it would be very bad to lose them.)
The epistemic standards seem totally core to EA to me. If we relax much at all on those I think the expected future value of EA falls quite dramatically. The question to me is whether we can relax/alter our discourse norms without compromising those standards.
I sympathise with this, but I think if we don’t have public posts like this one, the outcome is more-or-less decided in advance. If everyone who thinks something is bad remains silent for the sake of reputational harm, the discourse in the movement will be completely dominated by those who disagree with them, while those who would agree with them become alienated and discouraged. This will in turn determine who engages with the movement, and how it evolves in relation to that idea in the future.
If that outcome (in this case, broad adoption of the kinds of norms that give rise to cancel culture within EA) is unacceptable, some degree of public opposition is necessary.
Yes, I agree. What I’m uncertain about is whether it’s desirable to have more of these posts at the current margin. And to be clear: by saying I’m uncertain whether it’s a good idea, I don’t mean to suggest it’s not a good idea; I’m simply agnostic.
Okay, sure, at the margin I agree it’s tricky. Both for reputational reasons, and the broad-tent/community-cohesion concerns I mention above.
Trump demonstrates that thoroughgoing shamelessness effectively wards off cancellation, at least in the short run.
I disagree. Trump draws his power from the Red Tribe; the Blues can’t cancel him because they don’t have leverage over him.
We, by contrast, are mostly either Blues ourselves or embedded in Blue communities.
Can you give an example of someone or some community in a situation like ours, that adopted a strategy of thoroughgoing shamelessness, and that successfully avoided cancellation?
Agree that the Blues can’t cancel Trump. Note that being affiliated with Red Tribe isn’t sufficient to avoid cancellation (though it probably helps) – see Petraeus, see the Republicans on these lists: 1, 2
Jordan Peterson seems basically impossible to cancel due to a combination of his shamelessness & his virtue (he isn’t really Blue Tribe though). Same for Joe Rogan and Tyler Cowen.
Jordan Peterson is probably indeed a good example. A more objective way to describe his demeanor than shamelessness is “not giving in”. One major reason why he seems to be popular is his perceived willingness to stick to controversial claims. In turn that popularity is some form of protection against attempts to get him to resign from his position at the University of Toronto.
However, I think that there are significant differences between Peterson and EA’s situation, so Peterson’s example is not my endorsement of a “shamelessness” strategy.