3 ms·

> does it seem like most of pg's recent essays are attempts to "poison the well" against anyone who might try to hold him and his peers accountable for their co

> does it seem like most of pg's recent essays are attempts to "poison the well" against anyone who might try to hold him and his peers accountable for their contributions to the sorry state of our society? I'm wondering what kind of wack opinion he has that he doesn't want to talk about, and these essays are providing cover for. I'm extremely loathe to blame specific individuals for the state of systems. I do think that there is a broad limiting of discourse in the intelligensia in any particular circle. The metaidea is that certain approaches are the local way, don't question them; questioning bounces you to a different circle with its norms. Maybe this is just what happens, and people are noticing it more, but I'm skeptical.

defen 6y ago
> I'm wondering what kind of wack opinion he has that he doesn't want to talk about, and these essays are providing cover for. This is the exact thing the essays are about, though! To use a question from a previous pg essay - I'm not even asking you to share it, just asking if it exists - do you hold any opinions that you believe to be true, yet you dare not share with anyone for fear that you would lose your job and all social connections if you were to reveal that you held that opinion?
- NoodleIncident 6y ago
  > I'm not even asking you to share it, just asking if it exists - do you hold any opinions that you believe to be true, yet you dare not share with anyone for fear that you would lose your job and all social connections if you were to reveal that you held that opinion? This just seems like a trick question to me. If you say yes, then you agree with him; if you say no, you admit you're just a sheep with no independent thoughts. The idea of a lone free thinker who's come up with a forbidden truth also seems silly. The stuff people are getting "cancelled" for are not independent unique thoughts; they're stuff a huge group agrees with, including the current US president and ruling party. You also won't get shunned by all of your social connections for expressing it, you'll retreat back to the same group of people that reinforced those opinions to the status of "truth" in the first place, to reassure each other about how persecuted you all are.
  - defen 6y ago
    It's not meant to be a trick question - more of a prompt that attempts to trigger someone to have one of the following thoughts "maybe I should be more charitable towards people who have unorthodox ideas, and should encourage other people to be charitable" OR "maybe I'm living in Plato's cave". I'm not trying to get anyone to agree to any particular heresy. Just to acknowledge the fact that every single thing that is taken for granted today (by goodthinkers) was a heresy at some point in the past. It doesn't mean we can't enforce social norms about what is acceptable; but rather that maybe we shouldn't necessarily be so enthusiastic about persecuting badthinkers. Note also that I'm talking about speech here and not criminal behavior. > The stuff people are getting "cancelled" for are not independent unique thoughts; they're stuff a huge group agrees with, including the current US president and ruling party. First of all I don't care about "cancel culture", and I don't think I'm persecuted, but also if you think the President and the GOP are the "ruling party" of America then I suspect there might be an unbridgeable gap in understanding. That's only true if you completely ignore the role of schools and universities, elite/prestige media, NGOs, the intelligence services, the judiciary...
    - NoodleIncident 6y ago
      > Just to acknowledge the fact that every single thing that is taken for granted today (by goodthinkers) was a heresy at some point in the past. I should have responded to this when I saw it, but this is obviously not true
- pnathan 6y ago
  I don't _think_ so. I think there are certain research areas which are interesting, but research outcomes are so potentially misused or politically incendiary that there are no research done by people of good will. If you're curious what those are, that would be any root of an arbitrary topic that is contentious in the US culture wars.
  - defen 6y ago
    So going back to the Robert George quote from the essay - imagine you had been born a white male into a southern slave-holding family in 1750. What basis do you have for believing you would have been against chattel slavery? It seems like your only two options are "I just wouldn't have had an opinion on it" or "My opinions TODAY are uniquely correct for all time going forward". Unless you like to imagine future-you persecuting current-you.

defen 6y ago

> I'm wondering what kind of wack opinion he has that he doesn't want to talk about, and these essays are providing cover for. This is the exact thing the essays are about, though! To use a question from a previous pg essay - I'm not even asking you to share it, just asking if it exists - do you hold any opinions that you believe to be true, yet you dare not share with anyone for fear that you would lose your job and all social connections if you were to reveal that you held that opinion?

NoodleIncident 6y ago
> I'm not even asking you to share it, just asking if it exists - do you hold any opinions that you believe to be true, yet you dare not share with anyone for fear that you would lose your job and all social connections if you were to reveal that you held that opinion? This just seems like a trick question to me. If you say yes, then you agree with him; if you say no, you admit you're just a sheep with no independent thoughts. The idea of a lone free thinker who's come up with a forbidden truth also seems silly. The stuff people are getting "cancelled" for are not independent unique thoughts; they're stuff a huge group agrees with, including the current US president and ruling party. You also won't get shunned by all of your social connections for expressing it, you'll retreat back to the same group of people that reinforced those opinions to the status of "truth" in the first place, to reassure each other about how persecuted you all are.
- defen 6y ago
  It's not meant to be a trick question - more of a prompt that attempts to trigger someone to have one of the following thoughts "maybe I should be more charitable towards people who have unorthodox ideas, and should encourage other people to be charitable" OR "maybe I'm living in Plato's cave". I'm not trying to get anyone to agree to any particular heresy. Just to acknowledge the fact that every single thing that is taken for granted today (by goodthinkers) was a heresy at some point in the past. It doesn't mean we can't enforce social norms about what is acceptable; but rather that maybe we shouldn't necessarily be so enthusiastic about persecuting badthinkers. Note also that I'm talking about speech here and not criminal behavior. > The stuff people are getting "cancelled" for are not independent unique thoughts; they're stuff a huge group agrees with, including the current US president and ruling party. First of all I don't care about "cancel culture", and I don't think I'm persecuted, but also if you think the President and the GOP are the "ruling party" of America then I suspect there might be an unbridgeable gap in understanding. That's only true if you completely ignore the role of schools and universities, elite/prestige media, NGOs, the intelligence services, the judiciary...
  - NoodleIncident 6y ago
    > Just to acknowledge the fact that every single thing that is taken for granted today (by goodthinkers) was a heresy at some point in the past. I should have responded to this when I saw it, but this is obviously not true
pnathan 6y ago
I don't _think_ so. I think there are certain research areas which are interesting, but research outcomes are so potentially misused or politically incendiary that there are no research done by people of good will. If you're curious what those are, that would be any root of an arbitrary topic that is contentious in the US culture wars.
- defen 6y ago
  So going back to the Robert George quote from the essay - imagine you had been born a white male into a southern slave-holding family in 1750. What basis do you have for believing you would have been against chattel slavery? It seems like your only two options are "I just wouldn't have had an opinion on it" or "My opinions TODAY are uniquely correct for all time going forward". Unless you like to imagine future-you persecuting current-you.