5 ms·

I had not heard of Quillette until Tyler Cowen interviewed [0] Claire Lehmann, the founding editor. This article, and the precipitating events, fit perfectly in

I had not heard of Quillette until Tyler Cowen interviewed [0] Claire Lehmann, the founding editor. This article, and the precipitating events, fit perfectly into Quillette’s raison d’etre[1]. [0] - https://medium.com/conversations-with-tyler/claire-lehmann-tyler-cowen-political-correctness-social-norms-australian-culture-e52e2c08c629 https://medium.com/conversations-with-tyler/claire-lehmann-t... [1] - https://quillette.com/about/ https://quillette.com/about/

quotemstr 8y ago
I'm almost wondering whether Quillette should start a scientific publication arm for unsafe research. The open access model has low overhead, and it might be possible to allow researchers to publish under pseudonyms while upholding publication standards.
- ratsmack 8y ago
  And why would publishing controversial subjects be "unsafe"? Isn't one of the merits of ones learning is to have an open mind to new ideas? Why is it that when something is published that a specific group disagrees with or has "feelings" that are troubling do we feel the need to appease them to no ends... I find this troubling myself.
  - waterhouse 8y ago
    I'm guessing quotemstr used "unsafe" to mean "unsafe to your career as a researcher if you try to publish it in conventional universities".
  - mirimir 8y ago
    From the article: > At this point, faced with career-threatening reprisals from their own departmental colleagues and the diversity committee at Penn State, as well as displeasure from the NSF, Sergei and his colleague who had done computer simulations for us withdrew their names from the research. That strikes me as pretty damn "unsafe".
  - trolleyhacker 8y ago
    From the article: > Steinberger replied later that day. Half his board, he explained unhappily, had told him that unless he pulled the article, they would all resign and “harass the journal” he had founded 25 years earlier “until it died.” Faced with the loss of his own scientific legacy, he had capitulated. It's sad that these lunatics have the power to do these things, but that's why people appease them.
    - CM30 8y ago
      The thing is, a lot of these people don't have the power to do the things they claim. Or at least, they'd be perfectly replaceable by those who'd do a better job. Indeed, the only reason this sort of crap happens is because organisations and companies don't have the guts to tell the moral police to sod off. If they did, and their tactics stopped working, many of these issues would go away.
  - haihaibye 8y ago
    >> why would publishing controversial subjects be "unsafe"? ... Why is it that when something is published that a specific group disagrees with or has "feelings" that are troubling do we feel the need to appease them to no ends Because humans are coalition forming apes, with a brain built to survive in that environment not to perceive truth.
duskwuff 8y ago
Indeed. The suspicious part of me wonders if the authors deliberately engineered this situation.
- will4274 8y ago
  From the publication? Why? The article is self written - it's not all that surprising that an author would seek out a friendly outlet - ensures publishing in full, drives advertising views (money) to 'friendly' places. You can see politicians doing the same thing, even at the national level - Democrats and Republican senators write letters for publishing to different papers, mostly those that agree with them.
- wmf 8y ago
  If the authors got fired would you still suspect they engineered it? In reality this kind of stuff spirals out of control chaotically so it's incredibly risky to do it on purpose.
- nervlord 8y ago
  oh yes, because there is HUGE reward in fighting against the most popular narrative /S. In all seriousness, sometimes for certain people (outliers) there can be, but like musicians and sports stars for every one person who turns a censored idea into a speaking tour there are millions who are just quietly fired. You can be suspicious all you want, but frankly that is totally irrelevant info and frankly useless. Some people are suspicious that the earth is round, either it is or it isn't and if you think he's wrong, prove him wrong and publish your findings, that's the system. The system is not "I don't like this idea so it must be wrong" This is honestly going to end in disaster soon enough
kupiakos 8y ago
I have some fundamental problems with her approach to political correctness in the Medium article. Too many to go over, but the simplest and most frustrating is the complete disregard for the experience of transgender people, stating that it's a "performance" while race is not. That itself is completely disrespectful and not understanding the core issue before arguing it.
- js8 8y ago
  I think you misunderstood her. She was saying that being transgender in that role was central to the character. It was the point of the movie. However, whether a character is black or not doesn't really matter (anymore). That's why we don't use blackface masks anymore. In a sense, the minority community brings it to itself. If you highlight how you're not different, then you cannot complain that stories will be written about how you're not different - that's the whole point of highlighting it! But once the society completely accepts that you're not different, then the difference will truly not matter and there will be no story (for better or worse).
  - kupiakos 8y ago
    I'm not really seeing that part of the argument. From what I can tell, the crux of her argument differentiating it between blackface is that being trans is a theatrical act. She literally says "I think the performative nature of transgenderism itself should allow a woman like Scarlett Johansson to play a transgender person." She bases that argument on the false notion that being trans is an act. Anybody who says that has not had meaningful interaction with the community, because that's a direct insult towards one's own identity. Most people cannot understand how painful it is to have someone insult your own identity. I rarely see minorities arguing that they're literally no different than anybody else. Co-opting the Riddle scale [0], that sort of view is "you're not X, you're a person!". I believe the differences between people should be celebrated, and absolutely not used to discriminate. If a story is written about how a Japanese immigrant went through struggles coming to America, it would be disgraceful to have a white woman play that role. The reality is that the majority of Americans see trans people as different. It would be wonderful if that weren't the case, but until then, any cis (non-trans) person playing a trans person is going to be a caricature of the trans experience (although a cis man playing a trans man would be slightly better). Trans people continually try to argue that they're in the same overall category of cis people of the same gender, i.e. {trans women} ∪ {cis women} ⊆ {women}. It is a uniquely minority experience to see someone who cannot understand your struggles pretend to have them for a day. A common thing I see amongst "anti-PC" folks is the confidence in arguing a point in fields that they simply don't understand, and the hypocrisy that comes with that. She states that the norms that prevent using racial epithets or using gender as an insult are perfectly fine. Immediately after, she invalidates the experiences of all trans people in a typical fashion - "trans people are a performance and not their gender". If her mind had existed in 1970, she would've been perfectly fine with racial epithets, and argue that the people trying to tell her that's wrong are needlessly PC. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riddle_scale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riddle_scale

quotemstr 8y ago

I'm almost wondering whether Quillette should start a scientific publication arm for unsafe research. The open access model has low overhead, and it might be possible to allow researchers to publish under pseudonyms while upholding publication standards.

ratsmack 8y ago
And why would publishing controversial subjects be "unsafe"? Isn't one of the merits of ones learning is to have an open mind to new ideas? Why is it that when something is published that a specific group disagrees with or has "feelings" that are troubling do we feel the need to appease them to no ends... I find this troubling myself.
- waterhouse 8y ago
  I'm guessing quotemstr used "unsafe" to mean "unsafe to your career as a researcher if you try to publish it in conventional universities".
- mirimir 8y ago
  From the article: > At this point, faced with career-threatening reprisals from their own departmental colleagues and the diversity committee at Penn State, as well as displeasure from the NSF, Sergei and his colleague who had done computer simulations for us withdrew their names from the research. That strikes me as pretty damn "unsafe".
- trolleyhacker 8y ago
  From the article: > Steinberger replied later that day. Half his board, he explained unhappily, had told him that unless he pulled the article, they would all resign and “harass the journal” he had founded 25 years earlier “until it died.” Faced with the loss of his own scientific legacy, he had capitulated. It's sad that these lunatics have the power to do these things, but that's why people appease them.
  - CM30 8y ago
    The thing is, a lot of these people don't have the power to do the things they claim. Or at least, they'd be perfectly replaceable by those who'd do a better job. Indeed, the only reason this sort of crap happens is because organisations and companies don't have the guts to tell the moral police to sod off. If they did, and their tactics stopped working, many of these issues would go away.
- haihaibye 8y ago
  >> why would publishing controversial subjects be "unsafe"? ... Why is it that when something is published that a specific group disagrees with or has "feelings" that are troubling do we feel the need to appease them to no ends Because humans are coalition forming apes, with a brain built to survive in that environment not to perceive truth.

duskwuff 8y ago

Indeed. The suspicious part of me wonders if the authors deliberately engineered this situation.

will4274 8y ago
From the publication? Why? The article is self written - it's not all that surprising that an author would seek out a friendly outlet - ensures publishing in full, drives advertising views (money) to 'friendly' places. You can see politicians doing the same thing, even at the national level - Democrats and Republican senators write letters for publishing to different papers, mostly those that agree with them.
wmf 8y ago
If the authors got fired would you still suspect they engineered it? In reality this kind of stuff spirals out of control chaotically so it's incredibly risky to do it on purpose.
nervlord 8y ago
oh yes, because there is HUGE reward in fighting against the most popular narrative /S. In all seriousness, sometimes for certain people (outliers) there can be, but like musicians and sports stars for every one person who turns a censored idea into a speaking tour there are millions who are just quietly fired. You can be suspicious all you want, but frankly that is totally irrelevant info and frankly useless. Some people are suspicious that the earth is round, either it is or it isn't and if you think he's wrong, prove him wrong and publish your findings, that's the system. The system is not "I don't like this idea so it must be wrong" This is honestly going to end in disaster soon enough

kupiakos 8y ago

I have some fundamental problems with her approach to political correctness in the Medium article. Too many to go over, but the simplest and most frustrating is the complete disregard for the experience of transgender people, stating that it's a "performance" while race is not. That itself is completely disrespectful and not understanding the core issue before arguing it.

js8 8y ago
I think you misunderstood her. She was saying that being transgender in that role was central to the character. It was the point of the movie. However, whether a character is black or not doesn't really matter (anymore). That's why we don't use blackface masks anymore. In a sense, the minority community brings it to itself. If you highlight how you're not different, then you cannot complain that stories will be written about how you're not different - that's the whole point of highlighting it! But once the society completely accepts that you're not different, then the difference will truly not matter and there will be no story (for better or worse).
- kupiakos 8y ago
  I'm not really seeing that part of the argument. From what I can tell, the crux of her argument differentiating it between blackface is that being trans is a theatrical act. She literally says "I think the performative nature of transgenderism itself should allow a woman like Scarlett Johansson to play a transgender person." She bases that argument on the false notion that being trans is an act. Anybody who says that has not had meaningful interaction with the community, because that's a direct insult towards one's own identity. Most people cannot understand how painful it is to have someone insult your own identity. I rarely see minorities arguing that they're literally no different than anybody else. Co-opting the Riddle scale [0], that sort of view is "you're not X, you're a person!". I believe the differences between people should be celebrated, and absolutely not used to discriminate. If a story is written about how a Japanese immigrant went through struggles coming to America, it would be disgraceful to have a white woman play that role. The reality is that the majority of Americans see trans people as different. It would be wonderful if that weren't the case, but until then, any cis (non-trans) person playing a trans person is going to be a caricature of the trans experience (although a cis man playing a trans man would be slightly better). Trans people continually try to argue that they're in the same overall category of cis people of the same gender, i.e. {trans women} ∪ {cis women} ⊆ {women}. It is a uniquely minority experience to see someone who cannot understand your struggles pretend to have them for a day. A common thing I see amongst "anti-PC" folks is the confidence in arguing a point in fields that they simply don't understand, and the hypocrisy that comes with that. She states that the norms that prevent using racial epithets or using gender as an insult are perfectly fine. Immediately after, she invalidates the experiences of all trans people in a typical fashion - "trans people are a performance and not their gender". If her mind had existed in 1970, she would've been perfectly fine with racial epithets, and argue that the people trying to tell her that's wrong are needlessly PC. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riddle_scale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riddle_scale