26 ms·

The problem with that is that a lot of things, like for example racism or the value of eugenics, were publicly litigated decades ago and we overall decided we'd

The problem with that is that a lot of things, like for example racism or the value of eugenics, were publicly litigated decades ago and we overall decided we'd be overall better without them. Not everyone agrees with that! And by continually pushing back against the "we don't do that" consensus, and arguing about the details, they keep these ideas floating around longer than they really should. Choosing to engage with them when they've already been "settled" gives them apparent legitimacy and now you're setting explicit written policies about which words can and can't be used in what contexts and shit, rather than enforcing a social norm via a social mechanism. Some things need to be ossified! You can't be an athlete without a skeleton, you can't keep every idea in a pliable cartilage form forever if you want to do useful work on or around it. When things are more or less settled they should be solidified as well.

vorpalhex 4y ago
"Eugenics was a failure because it fundamentally misunderstands human development and behavior. We now have strong evidence that nurture and social expectations play a bigger role in behavior and outcomes than your genetics" is a much, much, much stronger answer than "we don't talk about eugenics". The semantic stop sign betrays weakness, like eugenics might maybe have some secret kernal of truth. The thrashing of it is both scientifically correct and demystifies it.
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  And now you're having a nature vs nurture debate at work, how is this a better outcome? That approach assumes that 1) every venue is an appropriate venue for a debate, 2) that everyone who supports a value or norm is educated enough on it to explain its technical merits to a skeptical audience and 3) everyone is capable of defending that idea against a hostile debate opponent in public. To me "we decided, it's not like that here" is firm and clear, communicates that this is a social norm that is not up for debate at this time in this venue, without necessarily declaring it's absolutely final or that there is no appropriate venue. There are not really any perfect solutions here but this is a quite good one.
  - pclmulqdq 4y ago
    If you don't want to have the debate, then why say "we don't do that here"? That is a pretty confrontational thing to say. Why not let the comment you don't like go? Also, who is "we"? If you have a 5-person company and you hire 10 more people, should the social rules decided by the first 5 be dictated to the other 10? Or should they be changed to make everyone maximally comfortable? These aren't questions that you should necessarily answer on the spot, but these are questions that have to be answered.
    - em-bee 4y ago
      Why not let the comment you don't like go? because sometimes it needs to be made clear that such comments are not acceptable here. you could say it in different words, like for example: "in this company such comments are considered inappropriate" or "we don't make such jokes here" If you have a 5-person company and you hire 10 more people, should the social rules decided by the first 5 be dictated to the other 10? initially yes. later when everyone knows each other better, there is time and room to reconsider and maybe debate the finer points of some specific rules.
      - pclmulqdq 4y ago
        I think the point is, the specific wording "we don't do that here" is patronizing and othering. If you want to tell someone "don't say that," just say it. "Don't say that, I prefer to be called 'homosexual'" is even better (using the "gay" example). Also, the idea of "reconsidering the finer points of the rules" is really interesting - it suggests that the comfort of the first 5 matters more than the comfort of everyone else. What if the first 5 people were hyper-religious conservatives who hired 10 progressives and want to keep hiring progressives? Should it still only be the finer points of the rules that get discussed? Or should it be understood that their culture of prayers every day doesn't scale up, and that a lot of things need to be re-worked? This can also be true of hyper-progressive people. A culture of offense-taking at little things, language policing, and social justice book clubs is as non-inclusive as a culture of daily prayers. "We don't do that here" is exclusionary language, and so are the other two comments you suggested. Both use "we" to fabricate consensus (has the company really decided as a group that this particular speech pattern is banned?) and shame the other party as an outsider. That is not the right way to create respect.
- JackFr 4y ago
  > "Eugenics was a failure because it fundamentally misunderstands human development and behavior. We now have strong evidence that nurture and social expectations play a bigger role in behavior and outcomes than your genetics" Wait - you think the problem with eugenics is that it was ineffective? I think we need to talk a lot more about eugenics.
  - vorpalhex 4y ago
    If you go the "Eugenics was racist..." route you're going to be met with the "but what if we do non-racist eugenics.." Or we can just nip the whole thing because failure and racist failure are both just failure.
    - em-bee 4y ago
      how about eugenics is immoral because every human being deserves to live and reproduce.
      - vorpalhex 4y ago
        We give genetic testing to every person for free at a few of their regular checkups with their primary care doctor. If you test positive for some genetic markers, you get free IVF, paid for by the government. If you have some kind of anti-IVF bent, it's not mandatory, just a benefit you aren't using. The IVF process picks embryos that have the least undesirable traits - but you will definitely have a kid and it will be yours. You have eugenics and no forced sterilization, no murdering people, nothing. It still won't work, but you have ethical eugenics.
- bena 4y ago
  Eugenics works. We know it does. We use it all day every day. With livestock, with plants, with all sorts of organisms. We breed for traits. That's eugenics. The reason we don't practice eugenics with humans is that it removes our agency and tramples our rights. And that's morally abhorrent. We don't need to pretend that it doesn't work. We just need to acknowledge that directing the procreation of other humans is just flat out morally wrong.
  - vorpalhex 4y ago
    Eugenics doesn't work. The goal of Eugenics is not to grow more corn or make people more fertile. If those were it's goals, it could work. Eugenics specifically aims to change the social situation (poverty, crime, drug use, etc) by changing the gene pool. That will never work, crime is not a genetic condition. What you describe is genetic modification, not eugenics.
    - bena 4y ago
      Have you seen dogs? You can breed for traits. I'm fully capable of realizing that forced breeding/sterilization is inhumane and also be aware that it is capable of getting results.
      - vorpalhex 4y ago
        We both agree bad things are bad, agreed. But really, eugenics doesn't work. If you go to a really crime filled area, legally/ethically adopt a dozen babies and raise them in a low crime area.. they will look like the area they were raised in, not like the kids who grew up in a high crime area. The inverse holds too. Go take a dozen babies from a low crime area, throw them in a dangerous high crime area, and they will be criminals. With animals, you can breed for some general traits but not consistently. Some German shepherds don't take orders well. Some non-herding dogs will be great at herding. If you want to raise, eg a police k9, you need to start with a very young dog (or get lucky), you can't randomly pull from a breed (oh, this dog is a GS, they will be a great police k9). If you engage in a really aggressive eugenics program you will.. basically not change anything.
pclmulqdq 4y ago
The theory of gravity has been ossified by the fact that every freshman physics student tests it and determines that it is correct. That is the correct way to build consensus around an "ossified" idea: to show people that it is obviously true. Even if the truth is uncomfortable, like it was to the Catholic church in 1600. If you try to suppress discussion instead, you lend credence to the idea that you have something to hide. Eventually the truth will win. If you have the truth on your side, why try to suppress its discovery? Similarly, we used to be interested in showing people that racism was bad. Anti-racism educators and consultants would talk about the economic benefits of widening your market or your employee pool. Now that we instead call people "racist" to shut down discussion, actual racists are gaining ideological footholds, and lots of people are suspicious of the people who call others "racist." People are not stupid. If you want them to agree with you, you should not talk down to them.
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  If racist policies are economically effective, are they therefore justified? Moral? Even stepping into a debate on some subjects communicates that it potentially has some merits. I think it's reasonable to resist that on the grounds that humans aren't gravity, no one is going to come up with newton's laws of how to treat each other. These things aren't facts of the universe that can be revealed to us, they are decisions we must make using our own resources. Debate is one of those resources, but not the only one, not even the most valuable one, not one that is appropriate at all times in all places for all ideas.
  - pclmulqdq 4y ago
    No, but explaining economics to a business owner is more likely to get through to them than talking about the social benefits. When you try to convince someone of something, you convince them of the benefits to them, not the high-minded benefits to society. We used to understand that. Edit: By the way, if it's good for society, and not for you, there should be laws about it. That's why the eugenicists in the early 1900's (who believed that racism was a social good) enforced Jim Crow Laws: businesses often refused to discriminate unless the law forced them.

vorpalhex 4y ago

"Eugenics was a failure because it fundamentally misunderstands human development and behavior. We now have strong evidence that nurture and social expectations play a bigger role in behavior and outcomes than your genetics" is a much, much, much stronger answer than "we don't talk about eugenics". The semantic stop sign betrays weakness, like eugenics might maybe have some secret kernal of truth. The thrashing of it is both scientifically correct and demystifies it.

giraffe_lady 4y ago
And now you're having a nature vs nurture debate at work, how is this a better outcome? That approach assumes that 1) every venue is an appropriate venue for a debate, 2) that everyone who supports a value or norm is educated enough on it to explain its technical merits to a skeptical audience and 3) everyone is capable of defending that idea against a hostile debate opponent in public. To me "we decided, it's not like that here" is firm and clear, communicates that this is a social norm that is not up for debate at this time in this venue, without necessarily declaring it's absolutely final or that there is no appropriate venue. There are not really any perfect solutions here but this is a quite good one.
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  If you don't want to have the debate, then why say "we don't do that here"? That is a pretty confrontational thing to say. Why not let the comment you don't like go? Also, who is "we"? If you have a 5-person company and you hire 10 more people, should the social rules decided by the first 5 be dictated to the other 10? Or should they be changed to make everyone maximally comfortable? These aren't questions that you should necessarily answer on the spot, but these are questions that have to be answered.
  - em-bee 4y ago
    Why not let the comment you don't like go? because sometimes it needs to be made clear that such comments are not acceptable here. you could say it in different words, like for example: "in this company such comments are considered inappropriate" or "we don't make such jokes here" If you have a 5-person company and you hire 10 more people, should the social rules decided by the first 5 be dictated to the other 10? initially yes. later when everyone knows each other better, there is time and room to reconsider and maybe debate the finer points of some specific rules.
    - pclmulqdq 4y ago
      I think the point is, the specific wording "we don't do that here" is patronizing and othering. If you want to tell someone "don't say that," just say it. "Don't say that, I prefer to be called 'homosexual'" is even better (using the "gay" example). Also, the idea of "reconsidering the finer points of the rules" is really interesting - it suggests that the comfort of the first 5 matters more than the comfort of everyone else. What if the first 5 people were hyper-religious conservatives who hired 10 progressives and want to keep hiring progressives? Should it still only be the finer points of the rules that get discussed? Or should it be understood that their culture of prayers every day doesn't scale up, and that a lot of things need to be re-worked? This can also be true of hyper-progressive people. A culture of offense-taking at little things, language policing, and social justice book clubs is as non-inclusive as a culture of daily prayers. "We don't do that here" is exclusionary language, and so are the other two comments you suggested. Both use "we" to fabricate consensus (has the company really decided as a group that this particular speech pattern is banned?) and shame the other party as an outsider. That is not the right way to create respect.
JackFr 4y ago
> "Eugenics was a failure because it fundamentally misunderstands human development and behavior. We now have strong evidence that nurture and social expectations play a bigger role in behavior and outcomes than your genetics" Wait - you think the problem with eugenics is that it was ineffective? I think we need to talk a lot more about eugenics.
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  If you go the "Eugenics was racist..." route you're going to be met with the "but what if we do non-racist eugenics.." Or we can just nip the whole thing because failure and racist failure are both just failure.
  - em-bee 4y ago
    how about eugenics is immoral because every human being deserves to live and reproduce.
    - vorpalhex 4y ago
      We give genetic testing to every person for free at a few of their regular checkups with their primary care doctor. If you test positive for some genetic markers, you get free IVF, paid for by the government. If you have some kind of anti-IVF bent, it's not mandatory, just a benefit you aren't using. The IVF process picks embryos that have the least undesirable traits - but you will definitely have a kid and it will be yours. You have eugenics and no forced sterilization, no murdering people, nothing. It still won't work, but you have ethical eugenics.
bena 4y ago
Eugenics works. We know it does. We use it all day every day. With livestock, with plants, with all sorts of organisms. We breed for traits. That's eugenics. The reason we don't practice eugenics with humans is that it removes our agency and tramples our rights. And that's morally abhorrent. We don't need to pretend that it doesn't work. We just need to acknowledge that directing the procreation of other humans is just flat out morally wrong.
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  Eugenics doesn't work. The goal of Eugenics is not to grow more corn or make people more fertile. If those were it's goals, it could work. Eugenics specifically aims to change the social situation (poverty, crime, drug use, etc) by changing the gene pool. That will never work, crime is not a genetic condition. What you describe is genetic modification, not eugenics.
  - bena 4y ago
    Have you seen dogs? You can breed for traits. I'm fully capable of realizing that forced breeding/sterilization is inhumane and also be aware that it is capable of getting results.
    - vorpalhex 4y ago
      We both agree bad things are bad, agreed. But really, eugenics doesn't work. If you go to a really crime filled area, legally/ethically adopt a dozen babies and raise them in a low crime area.. they will look like the area they were raised in, not like the kids who grew up in a high crime area. The inverse holds too. Go take a dozen babies from a low crime area, throw them in a dangerous high crime area, and they will be criminals. With animals, you can breed for some general traits but not consistently. Some German shepherds don't take orders well. Some non-herding dogs will be great at herding. If you want to raise, eg a police k9, you need to start with a very young dog (or get lucky), you can't randomly pull from a breed (oh, this dog is a GS, they will be a great police k9). If you engage in a really aggressive eugenics program you will.. basically not change anything.

pclmulqdq 4y ago

The theory of gravity has been ossified by the fact that every freshman physics student tests it and determines that it is correct. That is the correct way to build consensus around an "ossified" idea: to show people that it is obviously true. Even if the truth is uncomfortable, like it was to the Catholic church in 1600. If you try to suppress discussion instead, you lend credence to the idea that you have something to hide. Eventually the truth will win. If you have the truth on your side, why try to suppress its discovery? Similarly, we used to be interested in showing people that racism was bad. Anti-racism educators and consultants would talk about the economic benefits of widening your market or your employee pool. Now that we instead call people "racist" to shut down discussion, actual racists are gaining ideological footholds, and lots of people are suspicious of the people who call others "racist." People are not stupid. If you want them to agree with you, you should not talk down to them.

giraffe_lady 4y ago
If racist policies are economically effective, are they therefore justified? Moral? Even stepping into a debate on some subjects communicates that it potentially has some merits. I think it's reasonable to resist that on the grounds that humans aren't gravity, no one is going to come up with newton's laws of how to treat each other. These things aren't facts of the universe that can be revealed to us, they are decisions we must make using our own resources. Debate is one of those resources, but not the only one, not even the most valuable one, not one that is appropriate at all times in all places for all ideas.
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  No, but explaining economics to a business owner is more likely to get through to them than talking about the social benefits. When you try to convince someone of something, you convince them of the benefits to them, not the high-minded benefits to society. We used to understand that. Edit: By the way, if it's good for society, and not for you, there should be laws about it. That's why the eugenicists in the early 1900's (who believed that racism was a social good) enforced Jim Crow Laws: businesses often refused to discriminate unless the law forced them.