27 ms·

Reading this made me think of two essays I've recently revisited. 1. The Sound of Silence, by Jessica Livingston Three years ago she argued that the smartest

• throwaway4666 6y ago
  Okay but what does this have to do with the thread? Scott isn't being silenced, he's shutting down his blog out of concern that his relationship with his patients may be jeopardized if they could look him up on the NYT. (Whether he's justified I'm not qualified to say as I'm not a psychiatrist.) What's the hidden truth, controversial opinion or super secret insight at stake here?
  • jairofloress 6y ago
    His name is...
  • strken 6y ago
    Scott's coronavirus articles were reliably ahead of the media. He was early with insights such as the insufficiencies of the flattening the curve model, the efficacy of masks, and warning it could become a pandemic. These opinions are now mainstream. He gave them a platform earlier than the media did, because he was more open to being wrong and to exploring heterodox ideas, but also applied research and rigour when writing about them.
    • throwaway4666 6y ago
      I don't get your point. People are going to roast Scott because he got things right about covid? What does this have to do with his relationship with his patients?
      • strken 6y ago
        You asked which "hidden truth, controversial opinion or super secret insight [is] at stake". I gave some examples of what Scott got right to illustrate what's at stake if he's forced off the internet. Can you explain a bit more about what you're asking for?
        • throwaway4666 6y ago
          Okay so you're saying the NYT is silencing Scott by threatening to publish a hit piece about his early warning about covid? And if he didn't post that, his relationship with his patients wouldn't have been jeopardized by having his real name associated to his personal blog and he'd have kept it up? I'm not trying to strawman here, I'm genuinely attempting to connect the dots.
          • chiyc 6y ago
            What I got from it is that any sort of publicity at this scale is potentially harmful to his position as a psychiatrist and person. Not necessarily that the things he said were particularly right, wrong, or controversial. And even though early warnings about COVID may not seem particularly controversial, the internet attracts and fosters all sorts of conspiracy theorists and fantastic ideas. Scott also mentions himself that he's had death threats, which adds to the risk of having his name associated with the blog.
          • notStoicEnough 6y ago
            Maybe I'm missing some nuance to this line of questioning since I'm skimming too quickly for my own good... But my read is that Scott is simply opposing the NYT's absolute policy of posting his real name in their article. His decision to delete the blog is because there were other non-coronavirus posts which he feared could lead to all kinds of IRL reprisals if his real name were to be known publicly. Hence the repetition of "No doxing random bloggers for clicks". He seemed to be willing to bring everything back if that policy changes, and went so far as to ask people to mail the editor and be polite and specific about it. Anyhow, apologies if I'm just restating the obvious here.
  • fny 6y ago
    This is pretty easy. Scott does have controversial opinions at times. He uses a pseudonym to make them public without fear of that impinging on his life and work. So yes. He's being silenced because he cannot enjoy speaking publicly without fear of retribution.
    • throwaway4666 6y ago
      What do these controversial opinions have to do with the NYT writing a piece about Scott's early warnings about covid, and Scott's assessment that it would damage his relationship with his patients? Are you arguing that warning everyone ahead about the virus was controversial?
      • antepodius 6y ago
        Not in this case, now, no. But he's said plenty of things that some proportion of people find controversial enough to bother harassing his job to get him fired. If his name and website get more widespread acknowledgement, he expects the level of harassment to increase proportionally, which he fears could get him fired.
      • goatinaboat 6y ago
        You are being obtuse. The NYT propose linking his real identity to everything in his blog.
  • gringoDan 6y ago
    The point I was trying to make is tangential, but related to the post. Scott has created one of the most thoughtful, level-headed, and interesting places on the internet. And yet he's shutting it down because it has led to a huge downside risk for his personal and professional life: > I also worry that my clinic would decide I am more of a liability than an asset and let me go, which would leave hundreds of patients in a dangerous situation as we tried to transition their care. What does this mean for others who want to start similar blogs or engage in these sorts of discussions? They're going to see this sort of thing happening and think: "Why bother? It's not worth the trouble."
    • nabla9 6y ago
      But this is not about his opinions or that they are not accepted. This is about maintaining pseudonym and importance of it for practising MD.
      • yters 6y ago
        I don't understand how his blog could impact his practice. He doesn't blog about his patients. Unless, of course, his practice is worried about the opinions Scott posts on his blog...
        • DanBC 6y ago
          Doctors have weirdly strict rules about what they can or can't say on social media. In England the regulator is the GMC, and here's their page for doctors use of social media: https://www.gmc-uk.org/ethical-guidance/ethical-guidance-for-doctors/doctors-use-of-social-media https://www.gmc-uk.org/ethical-guidance/ethical-guidance-for... > Anonymity > If you identify yourself as a doctor in publicly accessible social media, you should also identify yourself by name. Any material written by authors who represent themselves as doctors is likely to be taken on trust and may reasonably be taken to represent the views of the profession more widely.10 But also, a complaint to the regulator is a worrying time for the doctor even if they've done nothing wrong.
        • arkades 6y ago
  • throwawaylolx 6y ago
    I think GP and many people ITT project their current political concerns on OP's post. It doesn't seem apparent to me that Scott is deleting his blog due to any recent political changes.
  • dlkf 6y ago
    If you had bothered to read the article, you would see that Scott lists two reasons why he is shutting down the blog. The reason that you mentioned is one. The other reason is: > The second reason is more prosaic: some people want to kill me or ruin my life, and I would prefer not to make it too easy. I’ve received various death threats. I had someone on an anti-psychiatry subreddit put out a bounty for any information that could take me down (the mods deleted the post quickly, which I am grateful for). You write: > What's the hidden truth, controversial opinion or super secret insight at stake here? There is no one opinion at stake here. What is at stake is the ability to hold any dissenting opinion. Or not even hold it, but merely discuss it openly. In the case of the anti-psychiatry lobby it's not even a dissenting opinion! It's basically the opinion that psychiatry ought to exist. There is just a small community of dissidents who disagree and want to get Scott fired (or worse). They now have a lot more leverage, because we've collectively decided that we should foster a culture where it's totally normal to try and get someone fired for things that are totally unrelated to work. Just as the members of an anti-psychiatry subreddit should have a right to freedom of speech and association without the fear that their posts will get them fired (or worse), so should Scott.
• dilandau 6y ago
  Both of those are right on point, and match my observations within my own circles. For me stallmans cancellation was a big turning point. I'm using a pseudonym everywhere now. I can't risk someone pulling up a comment or post years from now and using it to ruin my reputation or career, simply because i may have voiced an unpopular or controversial opinion that did not age well. It seems, too, that making jokes is very risky. With text online it's just far too easy to take something out of context and misrepresent or weaponize a person's words. I have had this happen to me personally and it's unbelievably frustrating. People aren't allowed to make mistakes, it seems. It is just too fraught, and even sincerity and honesty are not safe.
  • projektfu 6y ago
    You have to make giant, sweeping mistakes a part of your career or personality. Rush Limbaugh lost one tangential job, but is still influential and wealthy.
    • dilandau 6y ago
      Or make a private joke to your friend about a dongle.
      • projektfu 6y ago
        Did that work out well for him in the end?
        • dilandau 6y ago
          No I would not say it did. Being publicly shamed, kicked out of a conference, fired, and having your name posted all over the place are the kinds of things that tend to stay with you. Remember, we're talking about a stupid dick joke between friends.
          • ghaff 6y ago
            The whole thing got way out of hand and I'm sure it was very stressful. On the other hand, I understand he had a new job in short order. (On still the other hand, the person who kicked the whole thing off was also fired and AFAIK was basically locked out of the industry--at least in any public role.)
• artsyca 6y ago
  I'd say this forum is exactly this. How often have I self censored because I just don't want the downvotes?
  • shinigami 6y ago
    Exactly, downvotes hurt so much!
    • projektfu 6y ago
      Honestly, I once got a gentle slap from dang, and it made me reevaluate my comment. Downvoting is easily ignored.
      • abacadaba 6y ago
        I find down votes are usually the posts I'm most proud of. Nothing crazy, just means I dared to have an opinion. Also quite amusing what someone will take time out of their day to down vote sometimes.
      • celeritascelery 6y ago
        I had something similar. My comment actually had a lot of upvotes, but dang rebuked me for being inflammatory. Really made me rethink whether I am writing something to share knowledge or just to anger someone.
        • artsyca 6y ago
          Oh cm'on people are way too sensitive
        • kofejnik 6y ago
          do you think dang himself is without bias?
          • searchableguy 6y ago
            No. But I trust that dang will roll out self references to his old comments circling in an infinite recursion to explain what he means when he is scolding. Most mods online don't even do that. He might be wrong sometimes as all humans will be but you can ask him to clarify. He has to regularly see multiple sides of the site. HN is pretty diverse depending on what you click and as such, I do think he is less biased in some ways we are and more biased in others as he work as a mod for hn.
• cousin_it 6y ago
  I've seen moral fashions. What's happening now is bigger, rarer and worse. It's known as a "purity spiral" (Haynes), "mass movement" (Hoffer), "political religion" (Voegelin).
  • tomrod 6y ago
    It's unclear which country and which side of the spectrum you're referring to. This is why I like to use science as a guide (not a decision point), for then there is a chance to be self-correcting.
    • enraged_camel 6y ago
      Why is this comment being downvoted?
      • pharke 6y ago
        It seems rather tangential and doesn't contribute anything. It is pretty clear which country is being referred to if we're staying on topic, just saying "I like to use science as a guide" is an almost empty statement. Which science? Psychology, sociology, physics? The scientific method? How? Do you mean reading the current literature? How are you applying it as a guide to the current topic under discussion? The comment they were replying to cited authors and relevant terminology which is a great contribution for people that want to read more on the subject. This comment just blurts out an opinion and then follows it up with what could be considered a thinly disguised jab. Hence the downvotes.
      • tomrod 6y ago
        I think it is because I attempted to be neutral and post the mental model I like to use (other commenter asked if scientific method and recent research and understanding. Answer to both is yes.).
    • nradov 6y ago
      Yes science can be a good guide. The trouble is that some left-wing social movements explicitly reject science (and Enlightenment values in general) as a tool of the oppressor. There are certain things you're not allowed to say regardless of scientific evidence. For one example, look what happened to scientific critics of Lysenkoism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism#Effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism#Effects
• _wldu 6y ago
  Great post. I wish more people would genuinely listen to those they disagree with. When we shut people down or make them feel uncomfortable/threatened to the point that they won't speak, what have we gained?
  • matwood 6y ago
    > I wish more people would genuinely listen to those they disagree with. I had a bit of this discussion on HN not long ago. I love to debate and hear ideas from those I disagree with. But, that's not what people are often doing today. They are using your statement to appeal to others to listen and accept their clearly racist ideas or provable wrong, anti-science ideas. IMO, it's intellectually dishonest and a debate I have a hard time continuing.
    • throwaway4666 6y ago
      Yeah whenever people on here allude to 'what you can't say' it usually boils down to the same few very specific ideas, none of which are particularly secret, original or new. Hell, if you're a tenured professor, billionaire or anyone in a position of power whining about 'what you can't say' I find it hard to take you seriously.
      • antepodius 6y ago
        Even if they're not too afraid for themselves, they might be for other people in more tenuous positions than them.
        • throwaway4666 6y ago
          Ah, I get it. In a way, the Pioneer Fund is more of a charity.
      • bitcurious 6y ago
        People are getting fired and publicly shamed for statements and actions made one, two decades ago. It’s entirely reasonable to be afraid of speaking something acceptable but unpopular today out of fear that it will be unacceptable tomorrow.
• nojs 6y ago
  Where can one go to learn these controversial truths? I would love to see a list of these facts that apparently only insiders can talk about. Are they literally so confronting/offensive that they don’t exist on the internet?
  • A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
    I am going to respond with a paraphrasing of a well known quote about one such truth. The truth is that you are a slave in a prison without walls where prisoner never dreams of escaping. They exist, but the woke crowd is purging them hard now. Any moment now I expect Columbus city to be renamed.
    • contrapunter 6y ago
      >They exist, but the woke crowd is purging them hard now. Yes, thereby creating tomorrow's woke crowd. Tomorrow's woke crowd will ultimately purge today's woke crowd. So we may as well just politely state our opinions because self-censoring and trying to be nice won't save us.
      • A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
        But, and this is the important point, stating your opinion today may actually hurt you ( job loss, public media shaming, loss of business ) regardless on how politely it is stated. In a sense, it is starting remind of me stories my parents told me of the old country during communist regime. Political jokes could and were reported by your friends. This could result in various social sanctions including 'wolf ticket' ( effectively blacklist of dissidents ) preventing you from getting a job, car, you name it. Amusingly, today you find out, who your friends are by being unflinchigly open.
    • throwaway4666 6y ago
      We live in a prison because some folks are doing a historical reckoning about Columbus' past exactions?
• raxxorrax 6y ago
  This self censorship is most often meant when someone criticizes political correctness. It doesn't mean that you should unnecessarily put people off with inflammatory language. But I think it could still get you fired if posted on Twitter, at least a few years ago. Some people with especially large incomes seem to be immune though.
  • yters 6y ago
    Hah, yes, like JK Rowling! If you are a self made billionaire, you are pretty immune from the twitter mobs, and can make controversial statements such as "there are only two genders."
    • frogpelt 6y ago
      Ask yourself why is that opinion considered controversial? Are you living in a bubble?
      • yters 6y ago
        We are all living in a giant oxygen bubble!
    • raxxorrax 6y ago
      It is a matter of definition and she is probably wrong if academic definitions apply, but yes, that is one prominent mob. There are others of course. If you think that these dissections were meant to free yourself from expectations, it is kind of ironic to have a twitter mob coming after you for wrong opinions. Completely defeats the purpose and then some.
    • a9h74j 6y ago
      I question your use of quote marks there. AFAIK she is being much more precise in referring to biological sex.
      • yters 6y ago
        I am quoting her statement.
• mlcrypto 6y ago
  The silent majority!
  • blaser-waffle 6y ago
    It may have been a conservative talking point back in the day, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. "Broken clocks, twice daily" etc.
• yesenadam 6y ago
  That made me think of an essay I often revisit, Emerson's Self-Reliance (1841): Whoso would be a man must be a nonconformist. ... For nonconformity the world whips you with its displeasure. And therefore a man must know how to estimate a sour face. The by-standers look askance on him in the public street or in the friend's parlour. If this aversation had its origin in contempt and resistance like his own, he might well go home with a sad countenance; but the sour faces of the multitude, like their sweet faces, have no deep cause, but are put on and off as the wind blows and a newspaper directs. Yet is the discontent of the multitude more formidable than that of the senate and the college. It is easy enough for a firm man who knows the world to brook the rage of the cultivated classes. Their rage is decorous and prudent, for they are timid as being very vulnerable themselves. But when to their feminine rage the indignation of the people is added, when the ignorant and the poor are aroused, when the unintelligent brute force that lies at the bottom of society is made to growl and mow, it needs the habit of magnanimity and religion to treat it godlike as a trifle of no concernment. ... The other terror that scares us from self-trust is our consistency... Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day.—'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.'—Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.
  • throwaway894345 6y ago
    > To be great is to be misunderstood. I would be content with being ordinary—permission to ask obvious questions about the narrative handed down from on high—without fear of defamation that costs me my livelihood.
    • yesenadam 6y ago
      > permission to ask obvious questions about the narrative handed down from on high—without fear of defamation that costs me my livelihood. Sure, that's not much to ask for. The rights people fight and have fought for are mostly the freedom to do basic, everyday things like that. Wishing, hoping for it is easy. To actually do something about it, to fight for it and achieve it, to give everyone freedom from that fear – that would be greatness.
• underwater 6y ago
  Paul's post has always felt like a wordy defense of the "well, actually". Lots of us passionate techies like to weigh in on every topic and forget that not everything is academic. Sometimes the world doesn't need to hear our opinion. That doesn't mean we're being censored.
  • fche 6y ago
    I didn't need to hear your opinion.
  • mc32 6y ago
    Do you think regular people out there who are not experts in housing, policing, government, economics should remain silent and not express opinions on things they don’t have insight to? Everyone has a right to express their opinion even on topics they are woefully unqualified for. Including clueless techies. The only instance I agree is when celebrities spout opinions as fact (or promote a pet diet or cause) only because it could send millions of people on wild goose chases. That said it’s more of a wish and really not a desire to censor them.
    • deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    • underwater 6y ago
      Usually those topics don't fall prey to moral policing. An example might be someone arguing "trans women are not really women". If the question doesn't affect them personally, they're just pursuing what they see as a rational debate or stretching their mind. Their lives will not actually be affected by the exercise. If you're a trans woman then that's an argument you've been exposed to hundreds of times and it's demeaning and emotional. You can argue that you're just being rational. And you might ever change your mind! But it's a shitty thing to force that conversation on people when they're only the ones who have a stake in the outcome. It's not censorship if you are choosing to hold your tongue out of consideration for others.
  • cambalache 6y ago
    "Techies" are not academics in general.
• entropyneur 6y ago
  I love "What You Can't Say" and have incorporated the conformist test into my moral compass. But I think the shift to use of shame for society regulation is a positive development. I'd much rather be downvoted on HN or called names on Twitter than beaten up or deprived of freedom. But maybe that's just me.
  • zozbot234 6y ago
    > But I think the shift to use of shame for society regulation is a positive development. I'd much rather be downvoted on HN or called names on Twitter than beaten up or deprived of freedom. It's easy to require due process prior to anyone being deprived of freedom, and we generally see this as a positive development, compared to the alternative. Using "shame" (aka witch hunts, cyber bullying and the like) to punish unwelcome views is the opposite of due process.
    • entropyneur 6y ago
      It's not easy at all. Even in a democratic country with highly functional legal system like the US due process is not available to many (e.g. George Floyd). Also my idea of shame doesn't include death threats let alone more extreme things like swatting.
      • antepodius 6y ago
        It's the impulse that's lead to more shaming that's also pushing to make the police come and arrest you for saying offensive things- at least, this is already the case in europe. And why not swat someone? If you're going to go after their livelihood and try to stop them from ever having a job again, you're half killing them anyway. People murder each other for less. Be honest and just have their dog shot already ;)
      • _4msi 6y ago
        You are pretty far from the mark here... A study as far back as 2002 recognised the US as an oligarchy — i.e. not a democracy. And to call their legal/judicial systems or process “highly functional” is also pretty laughable. George Floyd shouldn’t have come into the line of fire of these systems, he was an innocent man. The fact that it was and is so difficult to prosecute the responsible officer shows how dysfunctional the system is. Using shame as a system of justice relies on emotional charge at the point of infraction. I would argue that’s how mob justice starts, not how we end injustice.
• globular-toast 6y ago
  That Paul Graham essay is fantastic. It really helps me to put into place things that I've been realising over time. For a long time I've had showdead enabled and I always go looking for the buried comments to see what I'm not allowed to say. I suggest everyone does.
  • hejgkrorjjfk 6y ago
    From my observations nuclear energy is the holliest cow on HN. Raising any sort of doubt regarding nuclear energy safety will quickly get you downvoted, flagged or banned: Fukushima proved that nuclear energy is not that safe.
    • deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    • antepodius 6y ago
      Really? I'm more pro-nuclear, and to me it seems like every time there's a post about it there's a pretty balanced argument in the comments about it. It's incendiary, yes, but the debate does happen, and the antis seem just as passionate as the pros.
    • larrywright 6y ago
      Fukushima did not. Check out the Netflix documentary Inside Bill’s Brain. The last episode discusses nuclear tech, and was rather enlightening to me. Fukushima was discussed, and I learned a lot about why that happened.
    • Matticus_Rex 6y ago
      I think it's less about "any sort of doubt" and more about the doubts that I actually see put forward, e.g. "Fukushima proved that nuclear energy is not that safe." I'll downvote that not because it's a doubt about nuclear energy safety, but because it's a pretty bad assertion.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
• cm2187 6y ago
  For me rather the film Good Night, and Good Luck (2005), we are going through the McCarty years again.
• nradov 6y ago
  Left-wing social movements, while initially well intentioned, tend to eat their own in escalating purity spirals. Total ideological purity is demanded, and valued above competence or actual results. The apotheosis tends to be something like Communist "self-criticism" sessions where people are forced to confess their thought crimes. https://unherd.com/2020/01/cast-out-how-knitting-fell-into-a-purity-spiral/ https://unherd.com/2020/01/cast-out-how-knitting-fell-into-a...
  • dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Left-wing social movements, while initially well intentioned, tend to eat their own in escalating purity spirals. That's not particularly true of left-wing movements; to the extent it's true of them it's also true of right-wing movements. The relevant factors are orthogonal to the left-right axis.
    • cambalache 6y ago
      Except it is, and not because "leftists" are bad or anything. I consider myself a leftist. It is because leftism promotes a resistance and challenging to authority and a prior belief in the goodness of the downtrodden masses. None of those are wrong per se, they are even healthy, but when they are perverted and distorted they can easily led to circuses like the cultural revolution in China. Right-wing ideologies usually promote submission to authority and traditionalism. The problems that come with excesses in that front are of a different kind.
      • dragonwriter 6y ago
        > Except it is, No, it's not. > It is because leftism promotes a resistance and challenging to authority and a prior belief in the goodness of the downtrodden masses I could with as much, justification say it is particularly associated with right-wing movements because the right promotes a rigid adherence to rules and authority, which devolves under pressure into seeking out non-adherence with progressively finer and finer combs. > Right-wing ideologies usually promote submission to authority and traditionalism. The problems that come with excesses in that front are of a different kind. Maybe in some other aspects, but a cycle of eating their own under pressure is not a point on which there is a difference. The left perhaps has more contribution from “people that were on the factions side before it gained power become genuinely opposed once it started executing power” and the right perhaps more from genuine intolerance for even the slightest deviation, but they both definitely experience it.
• tinyhouse 6y ago
  I was just thinking about this now after reading attacks on Yann Lecun on twitter. He's a prominent AI figure (head of facebook research and turing award recipient). My interpretation - he was saying that bias in AI is mostly a problem of data. He didn't say there's no bias or that you can't solve bias with modeling. Just that the model itself isn't what causing the bias. One woman researcher started attacking him and everyone is backing her up... even calling him a racist. I guess a lot of people who work on fairness in AI got offended because they feel he calls their research BS. (which I don't think is what he meant) I think his points are informative but instead of creating a useful discussion and debate, people focus on attacking him. I wouldn't be surprised if some people will request FB to fire him... (which thankfully won't happen) It's likely next time he will think twice before saying his opinion on social media. That's how toxic social media has become. Update: Great to see this got so many upvotes so quickly. Just shows how biased (no pun intended) social media like Twitter is, and how concerned people are to say their opinion publicly these days.
  • holtalanm 6y ago
    It has been this way for a while. Outrage/cancel culture is an absolute pox upon our population that really needs to stop.
    • Consultant32452 6y ago
      If silence is violence, then destroying a person's ability to maintain employment is also violence. And should be treated as such by the courts.
    • nogabebop23 6y ago
      Isn't a large part of this down to the forum of communication vs. the level of discourse? I mean, if you want to have a nuanced, balanced discussion about a potentially sensitive topic you just can't do that on twtter, SMS, message board, etc. Even on HN you see issues and that's will pretty tight tribal norms, moderation and topics where commenters aren't usually deeply or emotionally involved. I agree with your overall opinion, but i think that change actually starts with people reflecting on the impact of the chosen medium on their message. Not self-censorship but "positioning"
• enriquto 6y ago
  > Three years ago she argued that the smartest people are silencing themselves (...) which serves to consolidate power with insiders – those who are already powerful. Wow. I couldn't imagine that a person from the USA, of all places, could made so nonchalantly the equivalence smarts=power (unless there is a level of sarcasm on this essay that escapes me). There's such a lack of self-awareness in the american elite if they are bona-fide capable of sprouting such bullshit without realizing what they say.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • john-shaffer 6y ago
    It seems that by "smart" she meant "knowledgeable", in particular about how things work in her field. Of course people at the top know more (on average) about how the industry works. They are in a position to know.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
• lhnz 6y ago
  The events of the last 4 years, make it clear to me that we are rapidly heading towards totalitarianism. I finally understand the answer to the childhood question of "But, how could this every happen here?" that used to be an automatic response to being taught about awful events in history. When there is extreme moral certainty about societal problems, people can feel that for the problems to be dealt with they will need to do away with reason, due process, and free speech. It becomes the prevailing wisdom. Everybody that confronts these beliefs in a critical manner is either deplatformed or too scared to speak. By this point, the institutions and citizens are almost all in on it. Whether or not you see this in the same way that I do, probably depends on whether you think that the NYT is doing this from ignorance or because they consider Scott's manner of confronting topical issues to be competing with their own narratives. I personally think that they are willfully trying to identify a dissenting voice, and that we are right at the beginning of western politics becoming extremely harsh with dissenting voices.
  • enriquto 6y ago
    If you are a history nerd, reading what people wrote 90 years ago you will realize that we are exactly the same species, and our attitudes have not changed a bit. One of my favorite readings are the essays of french philosopher Simone Weil after two visits to germany in the thirties. She was concerned with the rise of the nazis, while at the same time describing the natural and understandable forces that were making them gain support. I do not think that there is an analogy between the groups of then and the groups of today. Still, the "outrage" mechanisms that steer our will seem to be identical.
    • lhnz 6y ago
      I've been heavily downvoted for suggesting that we're witnessing something dangerous. It's not that I think I can predict the future, but even if it continues as-is we're witnessing a loss of fauna, and this could easily mutate to something truly terrible in the next decade. The fact is Scott Alexander was my canary. If a compassionate, liberal-minded intellectual that carefully understands both sides of every issue doesn't find it safe to write online it's not safe for anybody outside of the dominant culture. I really do hope that everything turns out alright, and thank you for the essay recommendation.
• brightball 6y ago
  There’s a lot of things I’d like to blog about that I hesitate to do because I realize that no matter what I say, the topics alone will evoke a reaction from people.
• notoriousjpg 6y ago
  Another expression i like is 'truth by convention'