7 ms·

Not only that, it's also if you don't vocally condemn along with others (no matter the reason) you are also suspect. You support "the status quo" even if you t

by gedy 6y ago

Not only that, it's also if you don't vocally condemn along with others (no matter the reason) you are also suspect. You support "the status quo" even if you try to stay away from mob behavior, etc.

ryandrake 6y ago
That's part of the necessary practice of being "conspicuously upset"[1] about things, that SSC points out. It's not enough that I am upset by White Supremacists (I am). I must conspicuously post over and over how upset I am about things, lest someone confuses a brief period of silence with acceptance of something awful. 1: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anythin...
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  Okay, but it’s not like people expect Scott to denounce these things apropos of nothing. He publicly discusses them. It’s fine to have a nuanced take — but if you leave room for interpretation, don’t be surprised when people side-eye you for not taking a clear stance.
  - julianapostate 6y ago
    Ironically, there was a recent astral codex article about how much writings sucks and becomes useless when you have to appeal to too many stakeholders by constantly re-stating the obvious to keep everyone happy.
    - jakelazaroff 6y ago
      I think the disconnect here is that if your schtick is doing deep, ostensibly neutral investigations into controversial topics, a lot of people actually don’t find your true position obvious.
      - julianapostate 6y ago
        Im of the opinion that the “true position” of the writer behind writing is irrelevant. Teachers are supposed to grade essays anonymously to avoid biases against students but here we are preoccupied not only with the writer, but his “true position”.
        jakelazaroff 6y ago
        Well, this article is about the writer. But maybe I was unclear — by “true position” I don’t necessarily mean the feelings of the writer, but the thrust of their argument. You said that there is pressure to continuously restate the obvious; my point is that to a lot of people, it’s not actually obvious at all.
        nwah1 6y ago
        Why is it important that peoples' intentions are obvious in every piece of writing? Journalists, anthropologists, and plenty of others strive towards rhetorical neutrality intentionally, and just as someone can be a citizen scientist, someone could also be a citizen journalist or anthropologist. And furthermore it just isn't any of your business anyhow. What you are talking about is the equivalent of worrying about thoughtcrime. No objective harm was done but you worry that someone secretly holds an opposing viewpoint.
        jakelazaroff 6y ago
        You can write however you want to. But don’t be surprised if you write something that could be construed as sympathetic to race science, and people go “hey, this person might support race science”. You seem to be saying that you can be as ambiguous as you want and that people shouldn’t try to fill in the gaps, which is ridiculous. And no, it’s not “thoughtcrime” to form an opinion about a person based on things they’ve written.
        nwah1 6y ago
        The only reason your statement here doesn't seem completely absurd is because you are invoking an issue which people have an acute emotional reaction on, to the point where even something which would be viewed as paranoid in another setting seems acceptable. I shouldn't be surprised if people react in a paranoid or irrational manner, no. But I would hope that they would hold themselves to a higher standard. In this case we are talking about a very humane and nuanced thinker, and under normal circumstances we should in fact withhold insinuation of malice unless evidence exists. It is called the principle of charity.
  - wizzwizz4 6y ago
    He's taken a clear stance on pretty much everything I've heard people complaining about him not taking a clear stance on – including some things this article implies he supports (or condemns).
- da_big_ghey 6y ago
  It's not just being upset. It's, "Post the black square!" It's the guy who got accosted by BLM protesters demanding that he repeat their slogan. Havel's greengrocer provides a good characterization of this problem that has existed for a great deal of time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_the_Powerless#Havel's_greengrocer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_the_Powerless#Hav...
Spivak 6y ago
But that’s true! You are supporting the status quo. Every action in the trolly problem is a decision. Once someone shows you the lever you have no choice but to make a decision even if it’s inaction. What people want from you when they ask you to openly condemn something is to make a broad societal change that normalizes that condemnation. There’s nothing wrong with not doing it. And there’s nothing wrong with saying that some issue isn’t worth getting involved with, or you don’t think an issue is a big enough problem, or you don’t like how activists are going about it. Plenty of valid reasons but the crucial thing that you have to recognize that you’re making a choice, own it, and realize that it might have consequences.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  All right, I'll own it. I have failed to denounce people who are N degrees separated from me who believe terrible things, because I believe that guilt-by-N-degrees-of-asscociation-unless-denounced is both nonsense and deeply damaging to our society. I am not taking part in that kind of performance theater.
  - mlyle 6y ago
    Surely there's some room for nuance, though? If, say, large subgroups of white nationalists LOOOOOVE you, and are doing things to try and provide you support... passive acceptance of that support is questionable. There comes a point where if you continue to accept the support and not condemn that group that you're willingly associating yourself with them.
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      The problem now is that you can condemn something repeatedly and still be accused of not condemning it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99-yicMhjGo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99-yicMhjGo https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/trump-has-condemned-white-supremacists/ https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/trump-has-condemned-white-...
    - kortilla 6y ago

by gedy 6y ago

Not only that, it's also if you don't vocally condemn along with others (no matter the reason) you are also suspect. You support "the status quo" even if you try to stay away from mob behavior, etc.

ryandrake 6y ago

That's part of the necessary practice of being "conspicuously upset"[1] about things, that SSC points out. It's not enough that I am upset by White Supremacists (I am). I must conspicuously post over and over how upset I am about things, lest someone confuses a brief period of silence with acceptance of something awful. 1: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anythin...

jakelazaroff 6y ago
Okay, but it’s not like people expect Scott to denounce these things apropos of nothing. He publicly discusses them. It’s fine to have a nuanced take — but if you leave room for interpretation, don’t be surprised when people side-eye you for not taking a clear stance.
- julianapostate 6y ago
  Ironically, there was a recent astral codex article about how much writings sucks and becomes useless when you have to appeal to too many stakeholders by constantly re-stating the obvious to keep everyone happy.
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    I think the disconnect here is that if your schtick is doing deep, ostensibly neutral investigations into controversial topics, a lot of people actually don’t find your true position obvious.
    - julianapostate 6y ago
      Im of the opinion that the “true position” of the writer behind writing is irrelevant. Teachers are supposed to grade essays anonymously to avoid biases against students but here we are preoccupied not only with the writer, but his “true position”.
      - jakelazaroff 6y ago
        Well, this article is about the writer. But maybe I was unclear — by “true position” I don’t necessarily mean the feelings of the writer, but the thrust of their argument. You said that there is pressure to continuously restate the obvious; my point is that to a lot of people, it’s not actually obvious at all.
        nwah1 6y ago
        Why is it important that peoples' intentions are obvious in every piece of writing? Journalists, anthropologists, and plenty of others strive towards rhetorical neutrality intentionally, and just as someone can be a citizen scientist, someone could also be a citizen journalist or anthropologist. And furthermore it just isn't any of your business anyhow. What you are talking about is the equivalent of worrying about thoughtcrime. No objective harm was done but you worry that someone secretly holds an opposing viewpoint.
        jakelazaroff 6y ago
        You can write however you want to. But don’t be surprised if you write something that could be construed as sympathetic to race science, and people go “hey, this person might support race science”. You seem to be saying that you can be as ambiguous as you want and that people shouldn’t try to fill in the gaps, which is ridiculous. And no, it’s not “thoughtcrime” to form an opinion about a person based on things they’ve written.
        nwah1 6y ago
        The only reason your statement here doesn't seem completely absurd is because you are invoking an issue which people have an acute emotional reaction on, to the point where even something which would be viewed as paranoid in another setting seems acceptable. I shouldn't be surprised if people react in a paranoid or irrational manner, no. But I would hope that they would hold themselves to a higher standard. In this case we are talking about a very humane and nuanced thinker, and under normal circumstances we should in fact withhold insinuation of malice unless evidence exists. It is called the principle of charity.
- wizzwizz4 6y ago
  He's taken a clear stance on pretty much everything I've heard people complaining about him not taking a clear stance on – including some things this article implies he supports (or condemns).
da_big_ghey 6y ago
It's not just being upset. It's, "Post the black square!" It's the guy who got accosted by BLM protesters demanding that he repeat their slogan. Havel's greengrocer provides a good characterization of this problem that has existed for a great deal of time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_the_Powerless#Havel's_greengrocer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_the_Powerless#Hav...

Spivak 6y ago

But that’s true! You are supporting the status quo. Every action in the trolly problem is a decision. Once someone shows you the lever you have no choice but to make a decision even if it’s inaction. What people want from you when they ask you to openly condemn something is to make a broad societal change that normalizes that condemnation. There’s nothing wrong with not doing it. And there’s nothing wrong with saying that some issue isn’t worth getting involved with, or you don’t think an issue is a big enough problem, or you don’t like how activists are going about it. Plenty of valid reasons but the crucial thing that you have to recognize that you’re making a choice, own it, and realize that it might have consequences.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
All right, I'll own it. I have failed to denounce people who are N degrees separated from me who believe terrible things, because I believe that guilt-by-N-degrees-of-asscociation-unless-denounced is both nonsense and deeply damaging to our society. I am not taking part in that kind of performance theater.
- mlyle 6y ago
  Surely there's some room for nuance, though? If, say, large subgroups of white nationalists LOOOOOVE you, and are doing things to try and provide you support... passive acceptance of that support is questionable. There comes a point where if you continue to accept the support and not condemn that group that you're willingly associating yourself with them.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    The problem now is that you can condemn something repeatedly and still be accused of not condemning it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99-yicMhjGo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99-yicMhjGo https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/trump-has-condemned-white-supremacists/ https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/trump-has-condemned-white-...
  - kortilla 6y ago