11 ms·

Prima facie, this is a troubling story. But after reading it I noticed the author info at the bottom, and this made me somewhat suspicious. The Council for For

Prima facie, this is a troubling story. But after reading it I noticed the author info at the bottom, and this made me somewhat suspicious. The Council for Foreign Relations, of which Mounk is a member, is a highly-problematic US foreign policy think tank: https://monthlyreview.org/product/wall-streets-think-tank/ https://monthlyreview.org/product/wall-streets-think-tank/ Then another comment here on HN got me looking at Persuasion: Apparently, Mounk runs a group/community dedicated to protecting the "free society" from threats. Now, that's all circumstantial stuff, and the story might be as bad as it sounds. But when proponents of US imperialism talk about defending freedom, I get worried. So, I feel I would need to listen to the other side(s) regarding whether, how, and for what reasons the talk was canceled.

zimpenfish 5y ago
https://orgchart.mit.edu/node/6/letters_to_community/important-update-re-eaps https://orgchart.mit.edu/node/6/letters_to_community/importa... "...the department leadership concluded that the debate over both his views on diversity, equity, and inclusion and manner of presenting them were overshadowing the purpose and spirit of the Carlson Lecture" "The Carlson Lecture is not a standard scientific talk for fellow scientists. It is an outreach event, open to the public, with a speaker who is an outstanding scientist and role model [...] to inspire young people to consider careers in STEM." Seems fairly reasonable to me that you wouldn't want someone with divisive views on diversity giving your outreach lecture.
NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
It's really OK for you to agree with someone who doesn't share your entire set of political beliefs. There is no need to be suspicious. It's probably a bad thing for the world to be divided into "us and them", don't you think?
- crocodiletears 5y ago
  Group affiliation is a decent heuristic. It helps you to know what to look for when identifying whether there are concessions made to forward a larger agenda concealed within the text. I wouldn't dismiss the document out of hand by virtue of its author's social circles, but I also wouldn't say that suspicion is entirely unwarranted. Though the CFR is such a large organization, I would also be less immediately suspicious of its rank and file.
  - NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
    >Group affiliation is a decent heuristic. It helps you to know what to look for when identifying whether there are concessions made to forward a larger agenda concealed within the text. That's exactly where the wheels come off. The implication is that individual ideas or policies should be valued based on whether they're part of a platform at the level of party politics or similar. So what if the idea is part of someone else's larger agenda? What exactly are we threatened by?
    - crocodiletears 5y ago
      >So what if the idea is part of someone else's larger agenda? What exactly are we threatened by? If you disagree with the broader agenda or find that it is in conflict with your beliefs/interests you may be better served by pursuing alternative framings which don't depend on the priors of the the group with-which you find yourself in opposition. Just because you agree with the author's conclusion doesn't mean that their line of reasoning is parallel with yours, or that the assumptions and value judgements that they used to reach that conclusion don't logically unfold in an undesirable direction. Group affiliation can be a trigger and a compass to help you in that process. This doesn't mean that you have to disagree with them. It just means that you should take some extra time to understand both how and why.
  - rdiddly 5y ago
    It fosters confirmation bias. You will tend to find whatever you're looking for.
q1w2 5y ago
Debate the argument, not the argumentator.
- einpoklum 5y ago
  But I'm not debating, I'm evaluating. And when you only hear one side of an argument, prudence is merited.

zimpenfish 5y ago

https://orgchart.mit.edu/node/6/letters_to_community/important-update-re-eaps https://orgchart.mit.edu/node/6/letters_to_community/importa... "...the department leadership concluded that the debate over both his views on diversity, equity, and inclusion and manner of presenting them were overshadowing the purpose and spirit of the Carlson Lecture" "The Carlson Lecture is not a standard scientific talk for fellow scientists. It is an outreach event, open to the public, with a speaker who is an outstanding scientist and role model [...] to inspire young people to consider careers in STEM." Seems fairly reasonable to me that you wouldn't want someone with divisive views on diversity giving your outreach lecture.

NovemberWhiskey 5y ago

It's really OK for you to agree with someone who doesn't share your entire set of political beliefs. There is no need to be suspicious. It's probably a bad thing for the world to be divided into "us and them", don't you think?

crocodiletears 5y ago
Group affiliation is a decent heuristic. It helps you to know what to look for when identifying whether there are concessions made to forward a larger agenda concealed within the text. I wouldn't dismiss the document out of hand by virtue of its author's social circles, but I also wouldn't say that suspicion is entirely unwarranted. Though the CFR is such a large organization, I would also be less immediately suspicious of its rank and file.
- NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
  >Group affiliation is a decent heuristic. It helps you to know what to look for when identifying whether there are concessions made to forward a larger agenda concealed within the text. That's exactly where the wheels come off. The implication is that individual ideas or policies should be valued based on whether they're part of a platform at the level of party politics or similar. So what if the idea is part of someone else's larger agenda? What exactly are we threatened by?
  - crocodiletears 5y ago
    >So what if the idea is part of someone else's larger agenda? What exactly are we threatened by? If you disagree with the broader agenda or find that it is in conflict with your beliefs/interests you may be better served by pursuing alternative framings which don't depend on the priors of the the group with-which you find yourself in opposition. Just because you agree with the author's conclusion doesn't mean that their line of reasoning is parallel with yours, or that the assumptions and value judgements that they used to reach that conclusion don't logically unfold in an undesirable direction. Group affiliation can be a trigger and a compass to help you in that process. This doesn't mean that you have to disagree with them. It just means that you should take some extra time to understand both how and why.
- rdiddly 5y ago
  It fosters confirmation bias. You will tend to find whatever you're looking for.

q1w2 5y ago

Debate the argument, not the argumentator.

einpoklum 5y ago
But I'm not debating, I'm evaluating. And when you only hear one side of an argument, prudence is merited.