6 ms·

I don't know how to counter this argument because it just reverts back to the original question that djtriptych asked for which I don't have an answer. Open di

• throwaway894345 6y ago
  I think the answer is pretty simple: restore neutrality and objectivity to epistemological institutions. This doesn't mean that empirically false right-wing viewpoints need to be presented on equal footing with empirically true left-wing viewpoints, but rather that subjective issues should be described objectively rather than in the left-wing narrative. Similarly, when popular left-wing mistruths arise, these institutions should call them out as they would right-wing mistruths, however infrequently this may happen. In a word, "honesty". Conservatives (like everyone) need to specifically believe there is a path forward for their legitimate viewpoints, rather than the current system which more-or-less equally discredits legitimate and illegitimate conservative viewpoints. In addition to restoring objectivity and neutrality to epistemological institutions, we could also actively encourage more conservatives to participate in these institutions (and of course, treat them fairly and respectfully as they accept the invitation) to reverse decades of driving them out of these institutions. Yes, this is basically affirmative action for conservatives, and I appreciate the irony. Again, this phenomenon is decades in the making; expect it to take roughly just as long to repair.
  • slg 6y ago
    >I think the answer is pretty simple: restore neutrality and objectivity to epistemological institutions. This doesn't mean that empirically false right-wing viewpoints need to be presented on equal footing with empirically true left-wing viewpoints, but rather that subjective issues should be described objectively rather than in the left-wing narrative. How does this actually work in practice? What does this look like in terms of the coverage of climate change? >Similarly, when popular left-wing mistruths arise, these institutions should call them out as they would right-wing mistruths, however infrequently this may happen. In a word, "honesty". This already happens. Look at the NYT repealing of the Caliphate stories. How often do we get a retraction as big and public as that from the right? >Conservatives (like everyone) need to specifically believe there is a path forward for their legitimate viewpoints, rather than the current system which more-or-less equally discredits legitimate and illegitimate conservative viewpoints. In addition to restoring objectivity and neutrality to epistemological institutions, we could also actively encourage more conservatives to participate in these institutions (and of course, treat them fairly and respectfully as they accept the invitation) to reverse decades of driving them out of these institutions. Yes, this is basically affirmative action for conservatives, and I appreciate the irony. I will repeat my question from my last comment. Is there an example of this actually working? Is there an example of an institution that has lost the right's trust that was able to get it back through catering to their viewpoints while also remaining loyal to the truth? I am genuinely asking and not trying to be a jerk by just presenting rhetorical questions.
    • throwaway894345 6y ago
      > How does this actually work in practice? What does this look like in terms of the coverage of climate change? I think the climate science, reporting, and advocacy seems pretty good (at least with respect to bias). Maybe we could be a bit more aggressive about policing climate alarmism and other kinds of misinformation (the notion that banning plastic straws is going to have a measurable impact on wildlife such that it's worthy of our political will) or the pseudo-religious ideological takes like the arguments that climate change and "white supremacy" are inextricably linked or whatever. But in general, I don't see climate professionals behaving as badly as the media en masse or social scientists or other institutions--they seem to be genuinely open to bipartisan solutions and note that this openness doesn't require them to deny science (contrary to the dichotomous arguments that some make when people suggest cooperation or neutrality or objectivity). > This already happens. Look at the NYT repealing of the Caliphate stories. How often do we get a retraction as big and public as that from the right? Consistency, consistency, consistency. It's not enough to be honest or well-behaved once, it has to be a protracted effort over time. On the basis of this one event, a reasonable person wouldn't conclude that NYT is genuinely aspiring toward honesty and neutrality, much less someone who tends toward paranoia. > I will repeat my question from my last comment. Is there an example of this actually working? Sorry, if you asked this question, I missed it. I don't know of any examples because I don't know of other instances where people were divided epistemologically like this. Case studies would be interesting. > Is there an example of an institution that has lost the right's trust that was able to get it back through catering to their viewpoints while also remaining loyal to the truth? I don't think that "the right" has ever been this detached from mainstream epistemology in the first place--I don't think our institutions have ever been as compromised as they are now, at least not on a left-right axis. But there's probably no reason to limit our case studies to corruption of a left-right nature; we could equally look for any institution that lost the trust of a group of people and then gained it back (in part or in full). > I am genuinely asking and not trying to be a jerk by just presenting rhetorical questions. I didn't perceive you being a jerk. :)