8 ms·

Here Comes ‘The Journal of Controversial Ideas’

55 points by jeffreyrogers 8y ago

mixedmath 8y ago
> One unusual feature of the journal will be giving authors the option to use a pseudonym (though the journal’s editors say they hope most will feel comfortable using their real names). The thought is that such a policy would allow an untenured academic to publish a controversial paper, and perhaps to claim it later when he or she is on firmer career footing. Or maybe just to put it out there, and never claim it at all. That seems like an interesting, but perhaps ultimately bad idea. I'm uncertain --- it's certainly interesting. I see that a founder is Peter Singer, who has sometimes in the past suggested that it may be better for a family (financially and happiness-wise) to kill a disabled child and have another [1]. He considers this from an ethical perspective. I can imagine it being frustrating to want to consider hard, taboo ethical quandaries from a neutral standpoint. [1]: https://www.chronicle.com/article/Arguments-That-Harm-and/242543 https://www.chronicle.com/article/Arguments-That-Harm-and/24...
- s3r3nity 8y ago
  I came here to mention a similar comment. Ultimately, I think the success will be determined by the fact (hypothesis?) that if you de-center the author's authority from the argument about the validity of an argument or idea, you can instead re-center to something more foundational and logical. i.e. actually discussing the idea itself, rather than name-calling and mud-slinging as a form of discourse ("This person is a crazy Nazi / Maoist / Fascist / etc etc. - therefore how can you believe anything they say?")
  - giantsloth 8y ago
    I’m not worried about the fictitious and overblown “SJW” strawman youtube has lead everyone to believe are everywhere. I’m worried about corporate interests, ideologues, and charlatans publishing biased nonsense and making the world even more crowded with bad information without any recourse or ability to investigate what the motives behind the papers may have been.
    - s3r3nity 8y ago
      But this just leads back to my original point - the motives or authority of the speaker for an idea should have little weight into whether or not it's valid or sound. If there is bad information or a biased approach, that would be easy to root out when focused on the facts and logic in a vacuum. Editorializing or investigation into possible motives and the like puts the discussion on something that is not as important.
- yters 8y ago
  What's the use of pseudonyms when it is easy to deanonymize writing? If the writer is a well known academic it shouldn't be too hard to at least identify a probable author.
  - nzjrs 8y ago
    Probbable is defence enough I'd say.
    - yters 8y ago
      What's the point of a pseudonym, then?
  - daveFNbuck 8y ago
    > The thought is that such a policy would allow an untenured academic to publish a controversial paper This is targeted at least partly at academics that aren't that well known.
- Waterluvian 8y ago
  Geez that idea sounds logical and disgusting. Which I've learned is a sign that we really need to be able to dig deep into it.
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  Countless topics that are not, in and of themselves, controversial have become incredibly politicized. And this is an issue that seems to only be getting worse over time. Let's take a not so hypothetical hypothetical based on something that recently happened. Not long ago there was a paper published that, using a novel method of measurement, suggested that oceans were heating some 60% faster than thought. It turns out there were key errors in this paper, spotted just hours after publication, that made their conclusion (though not their novel form of measurement) unsupportable [1][2]. A couple of sources there since, as usual, the shocking headline will get a billion clicks, and the corrections maybe a dozen. But whatever, mistakes happen and that is not the point. But imagine now for a minute that this paper was instead going in the opposite direction and using a novel measurement had determined that the oceans were actually warming some 60% slower than thought, but it turns out that due to mistakes that conclusion was not supportable. Think about the backlash there and what would almost certainly end up resulting in personal attacks and suggestion of untoward motivation from the authors. That's nasty business, but things that should just be 'science as usual' have started to become things people take deeply personal. I would feel quite uncomfortable publishing things that go against the grain on a number of topics. And this is before we get into things that ought be controversial. Increasing intellectual conservatism means such topics have gone from controversial to outright taboo. [1] - https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/environment/sd-me-climate-study-error-20181113-story.html https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/environment/sd-me-... [2] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/11/14/scientists-acknowledge-key-errors-study-how-fast-oceans-are-warming/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/11/14... ---- Edit: As a perfect example of this, already in this very thread a person has stated an opposition to such journal because "I’m worried about corporate interests, ideologues, and charlatans publishing biased nonsense and making the world even more crowded with bad information without any recourse or ability to investigate what the motives behind the papers may have been." 'Seeking recourse and investigating the motives' often translates to finding the witch. Publish the 'wrong' idea and suddenly it's time to face the inquisitor. Publish the 'wrong' idea and make a mistake, and the inquisitor needn't waste his time - straight to the gallows with you.
asianthrowaway 8y ago
I fully support this idea, but I wonder if it will impair the ability to collaborate academically.
- msla 8y ago
  > I fully support this idea, but I wonder if it will impair the ability to collaborate academically. We've solved that idea a few times on a technical level, most notably using public-key encryption.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
new_guy 8y ago
Dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18437066 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18437066
542458 8y ago
I’d be more than a little concerned that this will turn into the “journal of not considering confounds around race/gender” and/or the “journal of old eugenics ideas that were already rejected years ago”. There are certainly parts of certain fields that suffer from too much groupthink or trend chasing, but I feel that this is putting the cart before the horse: ideas don’t gain merit because they’re controversial, they have merit despite or irrespective of that fact. It’s also worth noting that several large and reputable publications have already set up subcommittees dedicated to handling controversial ideas. So the idea of a venue for controversial ideas isn’t really all that novel. And while I’ve seen pubs get rejected from one venue or another for being controversial, I’ve never heard of a solid scientific pub getting blackballed from everything. Anything with even the slightest bit of rigour can almost certainly find a venue somewhere - there are a lot of second and third tier publications out there already without a lot to lose.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- otakucode 8y ago
  As it always does, it will boil down to how rigorous they are about the science. Eugenics fails not because it's controversial or immoral but because it's wrong and is based upon fundamental misunderstandings of how DNA works. There are certainly types of research that will benefit from being able to be published without worrying about committing career suicide. Several years ago a relatively new sex researchers did a study that showed significant reduction in depression among women who has unprotected sex with their male partner over women using condoms. This is simple biology, but it destroyed his career. The number of people worried that the public are too stupid to be trusted to make their own decisions and scared that such 'dangerous information' might lead to less frequent condom use and wider spread of STDs was much greater than the number of people who were glad to know some more about human biology.
  - asianthrowaway 8y ago
    How is eugenics wrong (in the scientific sense, not the moral sense)? It seems to work pretty well with plants and some animals (dogs, horses, etc.)
alllivesmatter2 8y ago
[]
- sctb 8y ago
  Could you please stop creating throwaways to break the guidelines with? We'll ban the main account if you keep on.
motohagiography 8y ago
The Economist has been doing anonymous articles for about 100 years, I think the only difference is they are not controversial.
- CaptainZapp 8y ago
  Not the same thing. Economist articles, with the exception of special reports and the farewell article by the editor in chief, are not bylined. The reason being that the newspaper wants to speak with one voice. In addition, and being certified and proud opinion journalism, I wouldn't exactly call TE uncontroversial. Not having a byline is very fundamentally different than writing under pseudonym.
  - motohagiography 8y ago
    The distinction would be interesting. The controversial journal is the single voice in this case, and the question of whether the pseudonyms are anonymous, or linkable by the editors to a real identity is the difference. How would you describe the difference as fundamental? Is it of who a reader has recourse to? Separately, TE isn't exactly provocative or brave.
    - CaptainZapp 8y ago
      How would you describe the difference as fundamental? I don't think you can really compare a journal, which solicits articles from third parties (even if they're controversial) with a general interest, political, economics, arts, news and lifestyle newspaper, which is published by a number of salaried editors and an editorial board hired by a single publication. Is it of who a reader has recourse to? The editors of The Economist are not unknown entities. Each section has its editors known by the paper, the only thing being that their articles are not bylined. The journalists may not be known to you, but they're absolutely not anonymous and you have every recourse towards the paper and by extension towards the responsible editor. As a matter of fact they're quite good in printing corrections or publishing letters to the editor by an offended party. Separately, TE isn't exactly provocative or brave. Ahem, I introduce evidence #1 [1] In a cover story they made a forceful argument for Gay marriage. That was in 1996. I, for one, wouldn't exactly call that a mainstream opinion in January 1996. As a matter of fact this is pretty much the definition for provocative and brave. [1] https://www.economist.com/node/2515389/print?story_id=2515389 https://www.economist.com/node/2515389/print?story_id=251538...
yters 8y ago
So is it going to be actually controversial ideas, or just ideas that are commonplace in academia but controversial to the lay public because the ideas imply eugenics and genocide of the average citizen? None of the potential "controversial" ideas seem all that controversial in the current academic zeitgeist. Abortion, euthanasia, infanticide, eugenics, and general genocide of populations the academics don't like are all ideas that have vocal proponents and even conferences within academia. Such ideas were commonplace in the lead up to WW1 and WW2. So, the journal does not really seem all that controversial. On the other hand, my opinion appears to be controversial. I wonder if the journal will publish it :D
- chickenfries 8y ago
  Where are the genocide journals or conferences?
  - yters 8y ago
    Plenty of environmentalists recommend drastic decrease in the earth's population. Hence widespread push for abortion and contraception in third world countries with booming populations. Since I'm rate limited for my controversial posts, responses to comments are here: It's politically incorrect for Western nations to push for mandatory abortion and sterilization. So, instead they adopt softer means of "legalization" and "education". While killing and preventing children can help adults not starve when the government is restricting their access to essentials so as to generate sympathy from Western countries that are causing the instability in the first place, there are perhaps other ways to address these humanitarian crises that do not hinge on ending human life and causing population implosions. Still rate limited (censored), so this is in response to chickenfries' claim that even the Vatican does not consider abortion genocide. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/06/16/pope-francis-abortion-equivalent-nazi-eugenics-crimes/707661002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/06/16/pope-fr... “It is fashionable, or at least usual, that when in the first few months of a pregnancy doctors do studies to see if the child is healthy or has something, the first idea is: ‘Let’s send it away,’” the pope said. “We do the same as the Nazis to maintain the purity of the race, but with white gloves on.”
rgrieselhuber 8y ago
As soon as I saw Peter Singer, I knew what kind of controversial ideas they would be. Check out the writings of Bertrand Russell for more of the same. It's likely to be the old, regurgitated fantasies from the British Empire and early 20th century eugenicists.
- opwieurposiu 8y ago
  I think your comment wonderfully demonstrates the utility of publishing under a pseudonym. Rather then confront the actual merits and problems with this or that specific argument, a straw man is contructed and immediately doused with ad hominem. If the writer is anonymous, fallacious and time wasting ad hominem reasoning is prevented.
  - rgrieselhuber 8y ago
    Ad Hominem is saying that something is invalid because of who the author / speaker is. I didn’t say that these ideas are likely to be invalid because they come from people like Peter Singer. I said based on the inclusion of people like him, it’s clear (to me, at least) what kind of ideas this journal will be discussing.
  - monk22 8y ago
    yah conflating Singer's ideas with imperialism and eugenics is just silly. Arguing about the person-hood of disabled babies is not the same as killing babies of other races because of some pseudo-science white supremacy bullshit
    - rgrieselhuber 8y ago
      If you don’t see the similarity, I don’t know what to tell you. The thing they have in common is arguing against personhood.
- jeffreyrogers 8y ago
  I don't agree with most of Peter Singer's controversial positions (I'm not a utilitarian), but I think calling him a eugenicist is unfair and misrepresents his position.
rhspeer 8y ago
This is necessary. Yes there will be ideas discussed at the quality of eugenics. However, there may also be ideas like the earth orbiting the sun. Example topics that should cause too much controversy for open discussion are: * The Palestinian apartheid * How Carolyn Bryand Donham fits into the #metoo movement * Supply side economics is the root cause of Facism * How long should a peaceful protests be ignored before it can morally be violent? * The United States was violently founded on "Taxation without representation". The same situation is happening now with gerrymandering and outdated Senate rules. * Cloning is going to happen, and it is going to get weird * AI is going to happen, and it may be scary I am NOT opening these ideas up for discussion. What I am saying is that all these are worthy of open, thoughtful discussion. Sometimes to say they are not a thing, sometimes to change perceptions. Mostly they are going to make a lot of folks angry.
- tptacek 8y ago
  Almost none of these bullets describe ideas that are going to be discussed in this journal. They're just random inflammatory political topics.
  - rhspeer 8y ago
    Correct, they are exactly random inflammatory topics. So what examples would you suggest? The examples from the post were: * Euthanizing disabled babies * The positive side of colonization * Choosing ones race like one chooses ones own gender identity Those also seem to have a political bent. Also to be clear not advocating for or against any of these ideas, some of them make me VERY uncomfortable even thinking about.

55 points by jeffreyrogers 8y ago

> One unusual feature of the journal will be giving authors the option to use a pseudonym (though the journal’s editors say they hope most will feel comfortable using their real names). The thought is that such a policy would allow an untenured academic to publish a controversial paper, and perhaps to claim it later when he or she is on firmer career footing. Or maybe just to put it out there, and never claim it at all. That seems like an interesting, but perhaps ultimately bad idea. I'm uncertain --- it's certainly interesting. I see that a founder is Peter Singer, who has sometimes in the past suggested that it may be better for a family (financially and happiness-wise) to kill a disabled child and have another [1]. He considers this from an ethical perspective. I can imagine it being frustrating to want to consider hard, taboo ethical quandaries from a neutral standpoint. [1]: https://www.chronicle.com/article/Arguments-That-Harm-and/242543 https://www.chronicle.com/article/Arguments-That-Harm-and/24...

s3r3nity 8y ago
I came here to mention a similar comment. Ultimately, I think the success will be determined by the fact (hypothesis?) that if you de-center the author's authority from the argument about the validity of an argument or idea, you can instead re-center to something more foundational and logical. i.e. actually discussing the idea itself, rather than name-calling and mud-slinging as a form of discourse ("This person is a crazy Nazi / Maoist / Fascist / etc etc. - therefore how can you believe anything they say?")
- giantsloth 8y ago
  I’m not worried about the fictitious and overblown “SJW” strawman youtube has lead everyone to believe are everywhere. I’m worried about corporate interests, ideologues, and charlatans publishing biased nonsense and making the world even more crowded with bad information without any recourse or ability to investigate what the motives behind the papers may have been.
  - s3r3nity 8y ago
    But this just leads back to my original point - the motives or authority of the speaker for an idea should have little weight into whether or not it's valid or sound. If there is bad information or a biased approach, that would be easy to root out when focused on the facts and logic in a vacuum. Editorializing or investigation into possible motives and the like puts the discussion on something that is not as important.
yters 8y ago
What's the use of pseudonyms when it is easy to deanonymize writing? If the writer is a well known academic it shouldn't be too hard to at least identify a probable author.
- nzjrs 8y ago
  Probbable is defence enough I'd say.
  - yters 8y ago
    What's the point of a pseudonym, then?
- daveFNbuck 8y ago
  > The thought is that such a policy would allow an untenured academic to publish a controversial paper This is targeted at least partly at academics that aren't that well known.
Waterluvian 8y ago
Geez that idea sounds logical and disgusting. Which I've learned is a sign that we really need to be able to dig deep into it.
TangoTrotFox 8y ago
Countless topics that are not, in and of themselves, controversial have become incredibly politicized. And this is an issue that seems to only be getting worse over time. Let's take a not so hypothetical hypothetical based on something that recently happened. Not long ago there was a paper published that, using a novel method of measurement, suggested that oceans were heating some 60% faster than thought. It turns out there were key errors in this paper, spotted just hours after publication, that made their conclusion (though not their novel form of measurement) unsupportable [1][2]. A couple of sources there since, as usual, the shocking headline will get a billion clicks, and the corrections maybe a dozen. But whatever, mistakes happen and that is not the point. But imagine now for a minute that this paper was instead going in the opposite direction and using a novel measurement had determined that the oceans were actually warming some 60% slower than thought, but it turns out that due to mistakes that conclusion was not supportable. Think about the backlash there and what would almost certainly end up resulting in personal attacks and suggestion of untoward motivation from the authors. That's nasty business, but things that should just be 'science as usual' have started to become things people take deeply personal. I would feel quite uncomfortable publishing things that go against the grain on a number of topics. And this is before we get into things that ought be controversial. Increasing intellectual conservatism means such topics have gone from controversial to outright taboo. [1] - https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/environment/sd-me-climate-study-error-20181113-story.html https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/environment/sd-me-... [2] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/11/14/scientists-acknowledge-key-errors-study-how-fast-oceans-are-warming/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/11/14... ---- Edit: As a perfect example of this, already in this very thread a person has stated an opposition to such journal because "I’m worried about corporate interests, ideologues, and charlatans publishing biased nonsense and making the world even more crowded with bad information without any recourse or ability to investigate what the motives behind the papers may have been." 'Seeking recourse and investigating the motives' often translates to finding the witch. Publish the 'wrong' idea and suddenly it's time to face the inquisitor. Publish the 'wrong' idea and make a mistake, and the inquisitor needn't waste his time - straight to the gallows with you.

asianthrowaway 8y ago

I fully support this idea, but I wonder if it will impair the ability to collaborate academically.

msla 8y ago
> I fully support this idea, but I wonder if it will impair the ability to collaborate academically. We've solved that idea a few times on a technical level, most notably using public-key encryption.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

new_guy 8y ago

Dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18437066 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18437066

542458 8y ago

I’d be more than a little concerned that this will turn into the “journal of not considering confounds around race/gender” and/or the “journal of old eugenics ideas that were already rejected years ago”. There are certainly parts of certain fields that suffer from too much groupthink or trend chasing, but I feel that this is putting the cart before the horse: ideas don’t gain merit because they’re controversial, they have merit despite or irrespective of that fact. It’s also worth noting that several large and reputable publications have already set up subcommittees dedicated to handling controversial ideas. So the idea of a venue for controversial ideas isn’t really all that novel. And while I’ve seen pubs get rejected from one venue or another for being controversial, I’ve never heard of a solid scientific pub getting blackballed from everything. Anything with even the slightest bit of rigour can almost certainly find a venue somewhere - there are a lot of second and third tier publications out there already without a lot to lose.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
otakucode 8y ago
As it always does, it will boil down to how rigorous they are about the science. Eugenics fails not because it's controversial or immoral but because it's wrong and is based upon fundamental misunderstandings of how DNA works. There are certainly types of research that will benefit from being able to be published without worrying about committing career suicide. Several years ago a relatively new sex researchers did a study that showed significant reduction in depression among women who has unprotected sex with their male partner over women using condoms. This is simple biology, but it destroyed his career. The number of people worried that the public are too stupid to be trusted to make their own decisions and scared that such 'dangerous information' might lead to less frequent condom use and wider spread of STDs was much greater than the number of people who were glad to know some more about human biology.
- asianthrowaway 8y ago
  How is eugenics wrong (in the scientific sense, not the moral sense)? It seems to work pretty well with plants and some animals (dogs, horses, etc.)

alllivesmatter2 8y ago

[]

sctb 8y ago
Could you please stop creating throwaways to break the guidelines with? We'll ban the main account if you keep on.

motohagiography 8y ago

The Economist has been doing anonymous articles for about 100 years, I think the only difference is they are not controversial.

CaptainZapp 8y ago
Not the same thing. Economist articles, with the exception of special reports and the farewell article by the editor in chief, are not bylined. The reason being that the newspaper wants to speak with one voice. In addition, and being certified and proud opinion journalism, I wouldn't exactly call TE uncontroversial. Not having a byline is very fundamentally different than writing under pseudonym.
- motohagiography 8y ago
  The distinction would be interesting. The controversial journal is the single voice in this case, and the question of whether the pseudonyms are anonymous, or linkable by the editors to a real identity is the difference. How would you describe the difference as fundamental? Is it of who a reader has recourse to? Separately, TE isn't exactly provocative or brave.
  - CaptainZapp 8y ago
    How would you describe the difference as fundamental? I don't think you can really compare a journal, which solicits articles from third parties (even if they're controversial) with a general interest, political, economics, arts, news and lifestyle newspaper, which is published by a number of salaried editors and an editorial board hired by a single publication. Is it of who a reader has recourse to? The editors of The Economist are not unknown entities. Each section has its editors known by the paper, the only thing being that their articles are not bylined. The journalists may not be known to you, but they're absolutely not anonymous and you have every recourse towards the paper and by extension towards the responsible editor. As a matter of fact they're quite good in printing corrections or publishing letters to the editor by an offended party. Separately, TE isn't exactly provocative or brave. Ahem, I introduce evidence #1 [1] In a cover story they made a forceful argument for Gay marriage. That was in 1996. I, for one, wouldn't exactly call that a mainstream opinion in January 1996. As a matter of fact this is pretty much the definition for provocative and brave. [1] https://www.economist.com/node/2515389/print?story_id=2515389 https://www.economist.com/node/2515389/print?story_id=251538...

yters 8y ago

So is it going to be actually controversial ideas, or just ideas that are commonplace in academia but controversial to the lay public because the ideas imply eugenics and genocide of the average citizen? None of the potential "controversial" ideas seem all that controversial in the current academic zeitgeist. Abortion, euthanasia, infanticide, eugenics, and general genocide of populations the academics don't like are all ideas that have vocal proponents and even conferences within academia. Such ideas were commonplace in the lead up to WW1 and WW2. So, the journal does not really seem all that controversial. On the other hand, my opinion appears to be controversial. I wonder if the journal will publish it :D

chickenfries 8y ago
Where are the genocide journals or conferences?
- yters 8y ago
  Plenty of environmentalists recommend drastic decrease in the earth's population. Hence widespread push for abortion and contraception in third world countries with booming populations. Since I'm rate limited for my controversial posts, responses to comments are here: It's politically incorrect for Western nations to push for mandatory abortion and sterilization. So, instead they adopt softer means of "legalization" and "education". While killing and preventing children can help adults not starve when the government is restricting their access to essentials so as to generate sympathy from Western countries that are causing the instability in the first place, there are perhaps other ways to address these humanitarian crises that do not hinge on ending human life and causing population implosions. Still rate limited (censored), so this is in response to chickenfries' claim that even the Vatican does not consider abortion genocide. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/06/16/pope-francis-abortion-equivalent-nazi-eugenics-crimes/707661002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/06/16/pope-fr... “It is fashionable, or at least usual, that when in the first few months of a pregnancy doctors do studies to see if the child is healthy or has something, the first idea is: ‘Let’s send it away,’” the pope said. “We do the same as the Nazis to maintain the purity of the race, but with white gloves on.”

rgrieselhuber 8y ago

As soon as I saw Peter Singer, I knew what kind of controversial ideas they would be. Check out the writings of Bertrand Russell for more of the same. It's likely to be the old, regurgitated fantasies from the British Empire and early 20th century eugenicists.

opwieurposiu 8y ago
I think your comment wonderfully demonstrates the utility of publishing under a pseudonym. Rather then confront the actual merits and problems with this or that specific argument, a straw man is contructed and immediately doused with ad hominem. If the writer is anonymous, fallacious and time wasting ad hominem reasoning is prevented.
- rgrieselhuber 8y ago
  Ad Hominem is saying that something is invalid because of who the author / speaker is. I didn’t say that these ideas are likely to be invalid because they come from people like Peter Singer. I said based on the inclusion of people like him, it’s clear (to me, at least) what kind of ideas this journal will be discussing.
- monk22 8y ago
  yah conflating Singer's ideas with imperialism and eugenics is just silly. Arguing about the person-hood of disabled babies is not the same as killing babies of other races because of some pseudo-science white supremacy bullshit
  - rgrieselhuber 8y ago
    If you don’t see the similarity, I don’t know what to tell you. The thing they have in common is arguing against personhood.
jeffreyrogers 8y ago
I don't agree with most of Peter Singer's controversial positions (I'm not a utilitarian), but I think calling him a eugenicist is unfair and misrepresents his position.

rhspeer 8y ago

This is necessary. Yes there will be ideas discussed at the quality of eugenics. However, there may also be ideas like the earth orbiting the sun. Example topics that should cause too much controversy for open discussion are: * The Palestinian apartheid * How Carolyn Bryand Donham fits into the #metoo movement * Supply side economics is the root cause of Facism * How long should a peaceful protests be ignored before it can morally be violent? * The United States was violently founded on "Taxation without representation". The same situation is happening now with gerrymandering and outdated Senate rules. * Cloning is going to happen, and it is going to get weird * AI is going to happen, and it may be scary I am NOT opening these ideas up for discussion. What I am saying is that all these are worthy of open, thoughtful discussion. Sometimes to say they are not a thing, sometimes to change perceptions. Mostly they are going to make a lot of folks angry.

tptacek 8y ago
Almost none of these bullets describe ideas that are going to be discussed in this journal. They're just random inflammatory political topics.
- rhspeer 8y ago
  Correct, they are exactly random inflammatory topics. So what examples would you suggest? The examples from the post were: * Euthanizing disabled babies * The positive side of colonization * Choosing ones race like one chooses ones own gender identity Those also seem to have a political bent. Also to be clear not advocating for or against any of these ideas, some of them make me VERY uncomfortable even thinking about.