3 ms·

I see this particular dustup as just a regional conflict between sects on opposite sides of the wider conflict - but the wider cold war going on is motivated by

by gfodor 6y ago

I see this particular dustup as just a regional conflict between sects on opposite sides of the wider conflict - but the wider cold war going on is motivated by people who have strong, largely un-falsifiable beliefs about how the world works, and who are acting with a unilaterial goal of re-structuring society around these assumptions and eliminating views in conflict with them (and eliminating those who hold them from the public sphere, or creating a sufficient chilling effect such that they censor themselves.) Once you see it as a religious war it's by far the best analogy to understand the dynamics, at least to me. It's also potentially more than an analogy to the point where the underlying belief system ought to be treated as a religion from a legal standpoint, for the benefit of everyone involved, including the believers.

pdonis 6y ago
> Once you see it as a religious war it's by far the best analogy to understand the dynamics, at least to me If "religious war" means a sectarian war, in which both sides are believers, just believers in different sects (often different only in details so minor that outsiders can't even see what the fuss is about), then I agree. I'm not aware, historically, of anything called a "religious war" that wasn't a sectarian war in that sense. This might just be a difference in terminology. However, it might not. If you think one of the sides in the "religious war" we are talking about is "unbelievers", then we disagree on something of substance. "Unbelievers" in this context would mean people who just think we should have free speech, period; that nobody should be suppressed simply because of what they are saying. But, as I said in my previous comment, I don't think either side in the current "religious war" meets this criterion; both sides agree that some speech should be suppressed, they just disagree on exactly which speech. Note that this applies not just to the particular "dustup" referenced in the open letter, but to the larger "cold war" you describe. Nobody is fighting for free speech, period. The different sides are just fighting for different rules about what can be suppressed. One side's rules currently seem a lot more draconian than the other's, but both sides want some such rules.
- gfodor 6y ago
  The specific religious war going on is between people who believe all human interactions are orchestrated through oppression and artificially constructed social constructs which ought to be deconstructed, and those who think that explains at best a subset of interactions, and (generally speaking) a decreasing number of the problematic ones. In this specific back-and-forth in academia, the underlying difference once you get past superficialities and rhetorical tricks to pull people into one side or the other by glossing over fundamental premises, is not about what speech is permissible or not. Both sides have their views on that claim emerge from their underlying worldviews around how racism, discrimination, gender stereotypes, and things inject themselves into human interactions and what levers exist for affecting those influences. My use of 'sects' in this example was a bit of a misnomer, I consider the situation going on here to just be a conflict that's emerging due to these divergent worldviews that is localized around a specific community and domain, and the rift is cast in stark relief when situations like this finally manifest.
  - pdonis 6y ago
    Who is fighting for the second point of view (the "explains at best a subset" one)? It doesn't seem to me that that's what the people who wrote this open letter are fighting for.
    - gfodor 6y ago
      It's not articulated directly in this letter but you have to glance at it sideways a bit to see the bear they are poking - it's not just free speech advocacy: "Scientific work should be judged on the basis of scientific merit, independent of the researcher's identity or personal views" This stands in direct opposition to the (increasingly common) belief that scientific merit is at best just one aspect, at worst a complete myth, and that the "lived experience" of the author (particularly through their racial and gender experience) contributes as much, if not more, to the validity and weight one ought to give to their scientific contributions and the conclusions they draw from them. This may sound ridiculous and you may think "surely they don't actually mean what it sounds like they are saying" but indeed they do, strongly. This is why it ought to be treated as a religion. The reason it ties back to the worldview I mentioned is if you believe that all human experience is merely an expression of oppressive forces and cultural constructs then "lived experience" ought to be the primary determinant of truth, since the scientific method itself is one such cultural construct, and likely a tool of oppression at that given its Euro-centric origins, and hence deeply flawed and broken in comparison to the "truth" of the collective experiences of diverse people.

by gfodor 6y ago

pdonis 6y ago

> Once you see it as a religious war it's by far the best analogy to understand the dynamics, at least to me If "religious war" means a sectarian war, in which both sides are believers, just believers in different sects (often different only in details so minor that outsiders can't even see what the fuss is about), then I agree. I'm not aware, historically, of anything called a "religious war" that wasn't a sectarian war in that sense. This might just be a difference in terminology. However, it might not. If you think one of the sides in the "religious war" we are talking about is "unbelievers", then we disagree on something of substance. "Unbelievers" in this context would mean people who just think we should have free speech, period; that nobody should be suppressed simply because of what they are saying. But, as I said in my previous comment, I don't think either side in the current "religious war" meets this criterion; both sides agree that some speech should be suppressed, they just disagree on exactly which speech. Note that this applies not just to the particular "dustup" referenced in the open letter, but to the larger "cold war" you describe. Nobody is fighting for free speech, period. The different sides are just fighting for different rules about what can be suppressed. One side's rules currently seem a lot more draconian than the other's, but both sides want some such rules.

gfodor 6y ago
The specific religious war going on is between people who believe all human interactions are orchestrated through oppression and artificially constructed social constructs which ought to be deconstructed, and those who think that explains at best a subset of interactions, and (generally speaking) a decreasing number of the problematic ones. In this specific back-and-forth in academia, the underlying difference once you get past superficialities and rhetorical tricks to pull people into one side or the other by glossing over fundamental premises, is not about what speech is permissible or not. Both sides have their views on that claim emerge from their underlying worldviews around how racism, discrimination, gender stereotypes, and things inject themselves into human interactions and what levers exist for affecting those influences. My use of 'sects' in this example was a bit of a misnomer, I consider the situation going on here to just be a conflict that's emerging due to these divergent worldviews that is localized around a specific community and domain, and the rift is cast in stark relief when situations like this finally manifest.
- pdonis 6y ago
  Who is fighting for the second point of view (the "explains at best a subset" one)? It doesn't seem to me that that's what the people who wrote this open letter are fighting for.
  - gfodor 6y ago
    It's not articulated directly in this letter but you have to glance at it sideways a bit to see the bear they are poking - it's not just free speech advocacy: "Scientific work should be judged on the basis of scientific merit, independent of the researcher's identity or personal views" This stands in direct opposition to the (increasingly common) belief that scientific merit is at best just one aspect, at worst a complete myth, and that the "lived experience" of the author (particularly through their racial and gender experience) contributes as much, if not more, to the validity and weight one ought to give to their scientific contributions and the conclusions they draw from them. This may sound ridiculous and you may think "surely they don't actually mean what it sounds like they are saying" but indeed they do, strongly. This is why it ought to be treated as a religion. The reason it ties back to the worldview I mentioned is if you believe that all human experience is merely an expression of oppressive forces and cultural constructs then "lived experience" ought to be the primary determinant of truth, since the scientific method itself is one such cultural construct, and likely a tool of oppression at that given its Euro-centric origins, and hence deeply flawed and broken in comparison to the "truth" of the collective experiences of diverse people.