3 ms·

Popularity/affluence and being ostracized aren't mutually exclusive: https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/05/23/can-things-be-both-popular-and-silenced/ https://slat

• Barrin92 8y ago
  This isn't a good faith comparison. (as the article itself seems to indicate at one point). Transgender people or early 20th century union organisers faced the threat of physical violence or legal discrimination. Sam Harris (or someone in a comparable spot) does not face legal discrimination or state violence. He just faces public and intellectual backlash. And that's perfectly okay. If you're a radical LGBT activist you're likely not welcome in a conservative church. What do lgbt activists do? They don't go there. As a labour activist I'm not welcome at the local Ayn Rand memorial. What do I do? I don't go there. It's a fact of free association that nobody is going to be welcome everywhere 100% of the time. The problem here isn't actual discrimination. It's that Pinker et al imagine themselves to be Enlightenment era Voltaires who preach wisdom to the masses who don't know any better, and mistake private controversy or at worst a middle finger for discrimination. In short, they're not popular and ostracised in the way labour rights were historically, they're popular and ostracised in the way a modern day televangelist is.
  • deogeo 8y ago
    For every person in a comparable spot to Sam Harris, there are many who keep their mouth shut for fear of losing their job. But it's not violence or discrimination by the law, so not only is it OK, but they shouldn't even complain about it.