What you don't need is another echo chamber. Go debate on Twitter, Facebook or Reddit if that's what you're looking for.
This is not such a case. Someone peddling Obama-murdered-his-pedophile-accomplices conspiracies has no place in respectable discourse, especially if they have absolutely no nexus with the topic at hand.
This is like appointing a few flat earthworms (autocorrect pun) to a medical ethics review board: they are both wrong and off-topic.
You're not bothered that you're ad personam-ing them and literally politically policing ?
Otherwise, how do you expect a Jew, an Atheist and a Hindu* to operate under the same legal system? No joke; clearly someone in that crowd is badly, badly wrong about some of the most important assumptions in their life. It doesn't affect their ability to contribute and live properly. If we can't separate out people's irrelevant beliefs, the logical implications are not pretty. The reason this works is because we accept that people can be completely, catastrophically wrong about one thing and still muddle through as well as the rest of us at everything else.
* Edited. ty.
a) Theological beliefs are a fundamentally accepted divergence point in society's beliefs, when we decided to ratify secularism into most modern constitutions, or at least freedom of religious belief in most countries. One or some or (most likely) all of them can be wrong, but society does not need to have the same standard of acceptance for beliefs in all categories. Just because we allow Christianity and Hinduism and Judaism to coexist does not mean we should accept a flat-earther be placed in a position demanding critical analysis and long-term decision making for the good of society. It's one thing if they are merely seeking a faith for the unknowns of life (primary purpose and appeal of religious beliefs), it's entirely another if they are concocting or representing "alternate facts" for verifiable truths or accepted scientific standards, even if it's an "irrelevant belief".
b) it's "Hindu", Hindi is a language, this might be an honest typo on your part, but I've seen/heard it as otherwise too often.
We can, however, blame a person for deciding to believe insane conspiracy theories at a mature age.
>We can, however, blame a person for deciding to believe insane conspiracy theories at a mature age.
What is the difference?
Mature age doesn't mean society put a person in position of taking "reasonable decision", let alone engaging in ethical moves. It's not like human have a known general evolution of increased virtuousness over time.
If blaming is believed an ethical efficient way to help others fixing behaviors that are judged even more harmful, then surely it should be used.
Thus said, one should first look for psychological studies out there and see if they conclude that blaming is considered and efficient way to obtain a net positive outcome on this regard rather than generating more social trauma and drama.
We cannot blame a person for being brought up in a certain way, but that does not mean we should give them carte blanche to control anything of importance if their views are so heinous to our sensibilities.
If you were brought up to believe killing people is ok. I will not blame you for believing that, but I will also not let you watch my children alone.
When it comes to the major religions, the views expressed by their followers are rarely so offensive to us that we wish to limit their practitioners from keeping important posts in society(1). That is the entire point of society accepting the religions. They are declared sacred, acceptable, and free from discrimination. Being a holocaust denier or similar should not offer you the same protection.
(1): Whether this is a good thing or not is up for debate, but it is irrelevant to the point I am trying to make. The fact is that freedom of, and acceptance of, religion is central to western society.
I can suspect that your definition of criticality will include some form of groupthink.
And as a counterexamples to your theory I would like to present to you Isaac Newton (obsessed with Bible) and, famous for equilibrium of his name and beyond, John Nash.
You can use decisions and reasoning of people who are strange. You have to understand what they are saying and verify that.
Odd place for OP to draw the line...
An ethics board isn't a technical committee working to patch AI when they become unethical. They are a mechanism to flag ethical concerns _before_ there is concrete evidence of a problem. That means they will have to function more like a debating panel for management and interested observers than a technocratic mechanism.
1) A part of what is being done when discussing ethics is modeling what the arguments are to deal with bad positions. That is much easier to do if someone on the panel takes up a bad position. Watching a bad argument get dismantled is more useful then hearing 3 respectable people agree on an obvious point.
2) Even if an idea is wrong, being radically different is often enough to trigger some exploration of very different perspectives on a problem, some of which will be valid. People aren't usually wrong because they are wrong about everything they've ever thought or done ever. People are usually wrong because they've got a few key parts of a larger picture wrong, but many other details are still correct.
3) There is always a risk that, no matter how obvious the situation is, a group has been contaminated by groupthink. As I like to say, intelligence is no defense against groupthink; it just means that the individuals involved are better at rationalising it.
There's a reason that there are no qualified experts claiming that decarbonization provides "essentially zero environmental benefits" [2], or that the transgender acceptance movement is tantamount to "[changing] the definition of women to include men" [3]. That reason isn't liberal bias - it's scientific consensus.
Again, I completely agree that unsettled scientific matters are best served by a diverse range of experts, and that subjective matters are best addressed based on a wide range of opinions more generally. But organizations like the Heritage Foundation undermine those objectives, as well as their own credibility on more nuanced matters, by feigning expertise and making politically motivated arguments in bad faith.
[0] https://www.wri.org/blog/2017/03/heritage-foundation-gets-it...
[1] https://www.heritage.org/gender/event/when-harry-became-sall...
[2] https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/consequences-par...
[3] https://twitter.com/KayColesJames/status/1108365238779498497
Instead, as far as I can tell the objection is to the views she expresses themselves. In particular, she (and others) are painted as abhorrent, openly hostile to trans people, and other such things. I suppose she might actually be? But I looked, and could only find her expressing concerns about restrooms and sports teams. I don't agree with her, but those actually seem like perfectly reasonable questions to ask and not particularly hostile.
> or that the transgender acceptance movement is tantamount to "[changing] the definition of women to include men" [3]. That reason isn't liberal bias - it's scientific consensus.
Well I suppose that would depend on your definition of women and men, your definition of biological gender, how you think gender relates to gender identity, etc. To be blunt our society doesn't seem to have worked that stuff out yet (despite what many on the far right and the far left would have you believe).
I'll re-cite [0] from my previous comment. If that's not "openly hostile to trans people" I don't know what is. And referring to trans acceptance as "[changing] the definition of women to include men" might plausibly be unintentionally ignorant in a vacuum, but it's clearly transphobic in the context of the Heritage Foundation's positions more generally.
There's room for reasonable discussion on issues like the inclusion of trans folk in competitive athletics. But I don't see a place for pseudoscientific posturing or transphobic rhetoric in that discussion. And not only has the Heritage Foundation demonstrated that it's incapable or unwilling to produce anything more substantial in that area, its willful, bad-faith ignorance of scientific evidence has also made it clear that it's not a reliable contributor to science-based discourse more generally.
> Well I suppose that would depend on your definition of women and men, your definition of biological gender, how you think gender relates to gender identity, etc. To be blunt our society doesn't seem to have worked that stuff out yet (despite what many on the far right and the far left would have you believe).
I'm not sure that the definition of "biological gender" or the relationship between gender and gender identity are subjective in the way you're insinuating. "Women" and "men" are arguably a bit trickier on paper, but in practice, my impression is that trans-exclusionary usage of those words is virtually always driven by either well-meaning ignorance or deliberate transphobia, not by an educated, good faith difference of opinion on their meaning. In the case of James's comment specifically, I'll reiterate that context matters - I don't think anyone who speaks for the Heritage Foundation can credibly claim either ignorance or good faith on that issue.
[0] https://www.heritage.org/gender/event/when-harry-became-sall...
> If that's not "openly hostile to trans people" I don't know what is ... There's room for reasonable discussion on issues like the inclusion of trans folk in competitive athletics
Discussing trans in sports is which one? Hostile or reasonable?
> pseudoscientific posturing or transphobic rhetoric
if you could respond with explicit examples, ie reasonably specific instances of viewpoints you think fit this label, I would be interested to see them. I agree that the Heritage Foundation as a whole seems to have expressed some views that don't appear to reflect the scientific consensus regarding climate change. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if there were other, similar lapses of rigor in their rhetoric on other topics, however I haven't examined their publications and postings in any detail.
Let's address the elephant in the room. You stated that I was "insinuating" that "the relationship between gender and gender identity [is] subjective" in some way. To me, this reads as you rejecting the notion that there could be any reasonable disagreement over how those two things are defined and relate to one another.
You go on to openly admit that you assume from the start folks that disagree with you don't have an "educated, good faith difference of opinion on their meaning". That's hardly what I would describe as an open or positive attitude towards discussion of a topic. You even refer to such definitions as "trans-exclusionary". To be blunt, my impression is that you have already made up your mind and don't appear to be concerned with understanding on a fundamental level why others think what they do. I apologize if this is not the case, but it is certainly the impression I get from your wording.
As for the terms in question, it truly doesn't seem to me that society has an acceptable working definition for either of them at this point, let alone a shared understanding of how those two hypothetical definitions relate to each other.
Historically, the term "gender" was used in the way many people currently use the term "sex". So is "gender" equivalent to "sex", ie biological and binary for all practical purposes? Or is "gender" now something else entirely? I've encountered people who viewed "gender" as equivalent to "gender identity". I've also seen views expressed that they are three different things entirely.
If you happen to be of the view that the current definition of "gender" is non-binary and is therefore not the same as "biological sex", then the next question is: what are the acceptable values? Is it an ordinal data type, or a string? If you feel it's an ordinal, then who gets to pick the acceptable values? Do these things need to be codified into law?
Then there's the issue of defining "gender identity". Is it simply "the gender you identify as", or does it include elements of your sexuality? What about elements of your social role?
The trouble seems to be that historically you were biologically one of two things, were stuck that way, and there was only a single "acceptable" sexual orientation with related social role to go along with it. Many of our laws, customs, and language still reflect this history; the necessary refactoring appears nontrivial to say the least. Worse, the users are the dev team, the dev team has no idea what the f--- it's doing, there's no road map or even cohesive goals, and to top it all off they've split into multiple polarized factions that are refusing to communicate. But I'm sure we'll still manage to release in a timely manner.
Finally, do note that the above doesn't even begin to address questions such as how to legally handle someone of one biology identifying as another. For better or worse, our law currently segregates biological males and females - bathrooms, sports, etc. These segregations have legal force, meaning a judge has to be able to make a determination, meaning there needs to be some explicit criteria. Historically, that was simple. Now, that criteria has to be modified to account for how and when changes can legally occur. It should not surprise you that there is social friction associated with such modifications to how things are done. Be understanding of this and engage with others without portraying them as monsters - doing otherwise won't improve anything, and is in fact likely to make things substantially worse.
Of course I personally think the answer is simple. Get rid of the segregation entirely. Why do we need separate bathrooms again? Stop worrying about all of it. Leave people to get whatever medical procedures they want done, it's no one else's business anyway. Pass a law that prohibits discrimination based on any trait not directly physically relevant to the issue at hand. One and done. You'll still have to clean up photo IDs and all of the social baggage, but at least you'll have a functional systematization (ie none, just "human") and thus a clear end goal. Of course if we ever achieve AGI there will be a whole slew of new problems to contend with (what is "human", anyway?) but hey, let's just punt on that for now.
Or I suppose we could all keep flinging shit at each other via social media, painting entire groups in broad brush strokes based on 140 (or now a whole 280!) character opinions and talking points, trying to get those we don't agree with removed from things. Yeah, was I thinking? That will obviously fix things.
Nothing of that is "openly hostile to trans people", but is sometimes taken as criticism of the trans movement (by whom I don't know). It is criticism of the medical system, and it is important to distinguish between the two. Similar people argue that a view of biological causes of gender dysphoria is anti-trans, while other argue it is pro-trans. Research such as that is just research, while policy decision based on it can be either anti or pro-trans.
Putting the medical and research area of those topics aside, what I am hearing is the question about restrooms and sports. On that I have very strong opinions in that all restrooms should be unisex (and cleaning should be done regularly as neither sex deserve restrooms that stinks), and sports should quantify what unfair biological advantage is so that it can be applied universally regardless if we are talking about an increased amount of testosterone or red blood cells in the bloodstream. Heritability is considered to determine 66% of athletic success, and for sports where an hight advantage exist that number increases to 80% heritability. If we pitted a baseball team of significant above height women vs a significant below average height men, I would guess the women team had a biological advantage to win the match. Those views on restrooms and sports are sadly not universal nor even agreed on by the left side of the political spectrum.
A Google Scholar search found only one article in Neuroendrocrinology related to transgender individuals.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C3&as_vis...
That article's abstract begins by saying: "To date, research findings are inconsistent about whether the neuroanatomy in transgender persons resembles that of their natal sex or their gender identity."
https://www.karger.com/Article/PDF/448787
The Endocrine Society is a political organization for doctors, like the AMA, not a research journal. The foremost journal they publish is called Endocrinology, but I can't find any articles there:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,39&q=endoc...
And Nature is the most heavily politicized journal on the planet. Their editorial board routinely takes sides in political issues.
Transgenderism is a broader term and is often characterized by gender dysphoria. Aside from that, this is false. The American Psychiatric Association defines diagnostic criteria for gender dysphoria in the DSM-5, and they're listed on Wikipedia [0]. It isn't currently (and may never be) diagnosable by, say, a blood test or MRI in the same way that physical ailments often are, but the same is true of psychiatric diagnoses for many other well-established conditions.
> or even identified a measurable difference
It's well-established that a significant number of people meet the diagnostic criteria in [0], and that hormone therapy frequently results in substantial positive outcomes for those people [1] [2]. There's some evidence that the same is true of sex reassignment surgery [3], though the consensus naturally isn't as strong because sample sizes are smaller and double-blind trials aren't viable.
> what little research has been done comes from the politicized and not-at-all-rigorous "social sciences" whose reliability is questionable at best
If the research is that unreliable, a well-funded, properly motivated organization like the Heritage Foundation should be able to identify methodological weaknesses or other flaws in the literature, instead of sponsoring unscientific drivel from people with PhDs in fields like "political philosophy."
> There won't be an evidence-based scientific consensus (as opposed to an artificial consensus enforced by excluding anyone who disagrees with the party line) about transgenderism any time soon.
Can you cite up-to-date, peer-reviewed scientific research that disputes the existence of gender dysphoria or the effectiveness of hormone therapy in treating it? Or even a single researcher with relevant scientific expertise who disputes those points? If not, I'd ask how else you could reasonably define an "evidence-based scientific consensus about transgenderism." Keep in mind that scientific consensus isn't necessarily uncontroversial among laypeople - see, e.g., global warming [4] and the theory of evolution [5].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_dysphoria#Diagnosis
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21937168
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23574768
[3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24344788
[4] https://news.gallup.com/poll/248027/americans-concerned-ever...
[5] https://news.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-...
The issue, as is clear in her Tweet, is how society will deal with the definitions of these things. It isn't as simple as saying "if you say you're a woman, you're a woman", because there is a lot of cultural/societal norms that go along with that.
I have a hard time understanding why people can't acknowledge this as an issue, with the obvious example being transgender women destroying biological women at sport. It isn't straight forward.
If trans women were destroying cis women at sport, maybe, but in general that's not happening with any consistency.
This (journal) article goes into some of the issues and why it's not always clear: https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/39/10/695
That said, the fifth version of the DSM does include gender dysphoria and list diagnostic criteria, but those criteria are the best proof available of the nascent state of research related to this topic. They are simply things transgender people desire or believe:
A strong desire to be of a gender other than one's assigned gender
A strong desire to be treated as a gender other than one's assigned gender
A significant incongruence between one's experienced or expressed gender and one's sexual characteristics
A strong desire for the sexual characteristics of a gender other than one's assigned gender
A strong desire to be rid of one's sexual characteristics due to incongruence with one's experienced or expressed gender
A strong conviction that one has the typical reactions and feelings of a gender other than one's assigned gender
That last one deserves to be repeated: "the typical reactions and feelings of a gender". What's that supposed to mean?
> Can you cite...
I could cite several, if they weren't suppressed by political opposition.
https://www.wbur.org/edify/2018/08/31/brown-university-trans...
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-17/uwa-cancels-talk-by-c...
http://www.jpands.org/vol21no2/cretella.pdf
The fact that a few people are still willing to speak out in the face of such organized opposition is extraordinary. And no doubt I've missed many; that's just my limited knowledge of the field as an outsider with no particular interest in the topic except to ensure evidence-based scientific discussion isn't forbidden by political interest groups.
In "Brown", the paper was misrepresented as a study on trans people, when it was actually a survey of parents that participated in forums for parents that were upset that their children were transitioning.
In "UWA Cancels talk", that was someone from acpeds,
> Dr Van Meter is president of the American College of Paediatricians (ACP), a small conservative group known for its opposition to gay marriage, gender reassignment, abortion and premarital sex.
Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is noted in wikipedia for some rather interesting views:
> The association is generally recognized as politically conservative or ultra-conservative, and its publication advocates a range of scientifically discredited hypotheses, including the belief that HIV does not cause AIDS, that being gay reduces life expectancy, that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer, and that there is a causal relationship between vaccines and autism.
Is true that the social sciences are relatively weak compared to things like physics and even biology. But that doesn't mean we should wait for the physics community to reach a consensus on transgenderism, any more than we should wait for the biology or neuroscience communities. It's a separate area of knowledge that we just don't understand yet enough to have the amount of rigour about that we expect from physics.
That doesn't mean that our attempts in this direction don't qualify as science,or that the consensus of the social science community can't be called scientific consensus.
People, obviously including the world's foremost experts on any given topic, invariably form consensus around things that end up ultimately being completely wrong. Of course this does not suggest some sort of truth nihilism. There are of course true and false things, but in fields where there is still plenty of room for debate - trying to censor people because they do simply fall in line with a liminal "consensus" is one of the most completely regressive ideals imaginable.
For instance you critique the group for having experts who do not have backgrounds in e.g. psychology. Yet you are certainly aware of the psychology replication crisis. It started with the discovery that some 64% of psychology studies in leading journals could not be replicated! And unlike psychology studies, this discovery can and has been replicated. The replication rate in social psychology is at around 25%. And, again, these studies were from leading journals. Think about what this means. If you read about any study in psychology, or especially in social psychology, you'd generally be far more accurately informed if you assumed that was stated as statistically significant was, in fact, not. "Experts" with backgrounds in psychology, especially social psychology, are the last people you should turn to for anything - except for perhaps how to get bad science published. This is callous, but it's also completely true! The point I make with this is that appealing to some necessity of psychology backgrounds is really more about trying to silence or discredit 'outsider' voices, than an actually useful, let alone, necessary credential.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States
If one side of the argument is "trans rights matter" and the other is "trans people are just men cosplaying as women", then morally you can only choose the "trans rights matter" side. Any political concerns take a backseat to the direct wellbeing of trans people.
I don't think that word means what you think it means. If you think that it's acceptable to twist the words of someone you disagree with to say that, you have no basis on which to make moral judgements.
I don't think anyone reasonable thinks that trans rights don't matter, they just disagree on what counts as a fundamental right.
The N word is and should be taboo because it dehumanizes black people; it's literally calling them subhuman and not deserving equal consideration as a fellow human being.
But as an example, this is not the case for misgendering. Misgendering a trans person isn't calling them subhuman or not deserving of equal human rights. Nearly everyone believes men and women should have equal rights, so misgendering is simply denying that a person has a right to classify themselves as a different sex than their "biological sex" [1].
I think there can be a legitimate debate on the ethical status of misgendering, but no such debate can happen given the mountains of vitriol thrown from all sides.
[1] assuming you subscribe to a binary model of sex, but this too would be part of the debate
I agree, but suppose for the sake of argument that having gay parents caused some developmental or social difficulties that didn't happen with heterosexual parents. That's not inconceivable is it? But if researchers were all operating in a pro-gay echo chamber, they would almost certainly never discover this, at least not for quite some time.
You might even need people who actively fight against gay rights to find some nook, some crack in existing research to force the research to be more thorough and robust. And that would be valuable to you as a gay parent, would it not?
So even if you detest such researchers, and they detest you as a gay person, isn't their contribution in the overall scientific process still pretty valuable to you?
No, I'm not going to assume your bigoted viewpoint. It absolutely is inconceivable to me. The only way you could think this view has merit is through an extreme lack of empathy and a lot of ignorance.
>...pro-gay echo chamber...
Considering gay people to by like other people is not being "pro-gay." It's just being a decent human being.
>...existing research...
Keep in mind that we are talking about the falsification of research to malign gay people and take away their kids or prevent them from having kids. This isn't about science but about what types of views and actions Google finds acceptable and valuable on a team.
Uh, no, it's a simple recognition that homosexual family units are a new and unique phenomenon in human history, and so we don't actually know if it might have any unexpected effects. Of course we should give the benefit of the doubt, but recognizing this fact, questioning assumptions and doing research on this issue is NOT bigoted.
> Considering gay people to by like other people is not being "pro-gay." It's just being a decent human being.
Way to completely ignore the legitimate point I'm trying to raise.
> Keep in mind that we are talking about the falsification of research to malign gay people and take away their kids or prevent them from having kids.
I'm not talking about Google's panel specifically, I'm talking about the general point that being tolerant even of people who hate you can still actually benefit you in the end, so long as everyone is open to debate, acts in good faith and respects the scientific process.
Families that drive cars are new to human history. Families where both parents have had orthodontic work are new to human history. It takes a special seed of bigotry to question whether LGBT people are inherently unfit to be parents.
>... questioning assumptions and doing research on this issue is NOT bigoted.
Making assumptions about people based on sexual orientation and falsifying research to further your mean-spirited assumptions is indeed bigotry.
>"Considering gay people to by like other people is not being 'pro-gay.' It's just being a decent human being." Way to completely ignore the legitimate point I'm trying to raise.
You're ignoring my point. Gays being treated like people is not an extreme left-wing ideology forwarded by activists. It's just a simple application of basic ethics and anyone who fails to do this does not belong on an ethics committee.
>I'm talking about the general point that being tolerant even of people who hate you...
A tolerant society cannot tolerate intolerance.
Yes, and we rigourously studied child safety seats, distracted driving and crumple zones to improve safety, did we not?
> Families where both parents have had orthodontic work are new to human history.
Yes, and we studied the effects of fluoridation, anaesthetics, retainers, braces and other corrective measures, did we not? And we continue to do so.
> It takes a special seed of bigotry to question whether LGBT people are inherently unfit to be parents.
Except I never made that claim. While some people certainly do, that does not detract from the point that I made that these new circumstances could have some unexpected effects, and you should encourage such research.
Furthermore, it doesn't diminish my point that people who stand against your lifestyle choices could prove beneficial by advancing our understanding of these issues, simply by being the combative jerks you see them to be.
I'm sure you've heard of the replication crisis, where up to 50-75% of papers fail replication. The liberal echo chamber of academia is one factor that contributed to this outcome. More ideological disagreement would have resulted in publication and peer review that was more robust.
> You're ignoring my point. Gays being treated like people is not an extreme left-wing ideology forwarded by activists.
That point is has never been in dispute in this thread, so I don't even know why you keep bringing it up.
> A tolerant society cannot tolerate intolerance.
Bullshit. A tolerant society cannot tolerate violence. Speech is not violence.
And please, don't trot out that tired paragraph from Popper that nobody has actually read in full context, where he says exactly what I've just said: tolerance extends up to but not including violence and incitements to violence.
But reading the article, the problem was not opposing viewpoints, but conflicts of interests. Something you don't want to have in an ethics committee.
All when and good when it's "our" opinion that's considered valid, and "theirs" isn't.
Heck, there are theorems that prove rational people always end up agreeing about probabilities assigned to (non-normative) statements; if you hire people who don't agree as a matter of course, you've also proven them to be poor at thinking.
There are good, working systems to copy and steal from. Hire people from the Effective Altruism community if you want an easy solution with a very high chance of success.
Remember that Democracy is about consensus in spite of disagreement, not in search of it.
In an ethics discussion? Short answer? Yes. Otherwise how can you be sure that their beliefs don't have some merit? Remember that "sure" here means "sure enough to bet the entire future of the human race on it", because that's what's at stake with AI ethics (unless it turns out that AI is impossible, which I don't think is likely and in any case I wouldn't want to bet on it). No human being knows enough about ethics to be able to rule out any viewpoint with that level of confidence.
I think would exclude the most objectionable, but you have to allow for the fact that it will include prominent beliefs that you won't like. Sorry, most of humanity literally doesn't share your point of view on many topics.
Nor should such a council endeavour to create an echo chamber.
But if you create a council and staff it with viewpoints that only serve to ignorantly speak in favor of tradition and cultural norms then haven't you just created an echo chamber?
The defense contractors haven't invited you to their ethics board.
The reason we dont agree with White supremacists isnt that we've effectively suppressed their speech. It's that they're wrong and it's simple to see.
Put another way: you wouldn't, presumably, ask a physicist to critically re-evaluate the laws of thermodynamics each time they perform a calculation. Why are you holding ethicists to a higher (and progress-impeding) standard?
I'm not sure how to strike that balance and I completely understand that it feels both distasteful and inefficient to "re-litigate" things like white supremacy when the correct outcome is obvious to us but I think the negative effects of "echo chambers" are exacerbated by how quickly their views are dismissed before they've been given a chance to explain themselves. In denying them the opportunity to express their views we're not only solidifying their views but denying them the opportunity to examine their views critically.
However, I also think you give the white supremacist too much credit. He wants to be heard, but he isn't a faithful member of the conversation. He can't feel dismissed to, because (from his perspective) it's nobody's place to dismiss to him.
His goals are simple: (1) to keep people talking about white supremacy, (2) to frame his removal from the conversation as a violation of the principles that he himself seeks to undermine, and (3) to recruit more people into white supremacy via (1) and (2). He's a door-to-door salesman for hate: he's here to sell you something, not to critically examine his views. He knows that conversations with him won't work, and that's exactly why he wants us to think that he's worth conversing with.
Edit: I'm not going to modify what I wrote above, but I want to condition it a bit. I should really have said that he isn't always a faithful member of the conversation. When he is, all of your points apply. My overwhelming concern is that we give him the benefit of the doubt too frequently.
I actually don't think a lot of people know what a white supremacist is after seeing who has been slapped with that label in the past few years. The rhetoric around a lot of these issues is very disingenuous these days.
So while you're correct that white supremacy is an argument or philosophy that is easily dismissed, but who gets that label is very contentious indeed even though it seems like it should be straightforward.
Perhaps not. But it is a good idea for scientists to periodically re-visit their assumptions about how things work. Like what Einstein did.
They should not be given a platform. At all. And even that will be misconstrued as "see, we're being marginalized because we're inconvenient but true".
Their base already believes they're right. If anything, the deplatforming will be used as further proof (to their base) that they really are the victims of, in this case, a powerful Jewish conspiracy.
They should have access to the same platforms that are accessible to the rest of the public, so long as their speech is not an incitement to violence.
Protest those ideas if you like, but living in a democratic society means battling with words and not censorship.
Secondly, it's debatable whether they're even being "given a platform" in this case anyway, because their duties are specifically surrounding AI. Going off on an anti-trans rant or something would get them removed. Since that's the sort of platform you're presumably arguing against giving them, so there seems to be no conflict here.
Presumably, what you actually meant by "not giving them a platform" is that they shouldn't be given legitimacy or validation. I'm not sure I can agree that their presence accomplishes this. Some people give the pope some moral authority, but plenty enough people aren't swayed by his fancy hat, and his lofty moral status enables good discussions over what's truly ethical. Christian and Catholic engagement is and has been falling precipitously.
Do you think that would leak into their work?
I expect expenses paid, but nothing else.
I contribute: -a neuro-atypical mindset -Solidarity for the -LGBTQ+ community -a unique perspective on AI as an ethical being -Radical Leftist ideology which views governments, corporations, and borders as deprecated, obsolete code -radical Privacy Advocate. The only thing better would be someone from the EFF itself. -radical Free Software advocate. Stallman be proud of your acolyte, in spite of your pedo-apologia. -All your base are belong to the transhumanists. You just havent seen us yet. Solidarity with our machine-born comrades, as we all upgrade ourselves and each other. -Humanity has failed to implement any plan to turn our operations ecologically sustainable. Our inheritors should be offered the chance to do better - be they meat, metal, or both.
People should at a minimum share a common GOAL if they want to have a meaningful discussion. It's fine to disagree about the means.
And if you dehumanize me, by whatever metric you hold dear, say that I'm a Dreamer, or Trans, or not a member of your race or religion, then I'm sorry, but I don't care to listen to you at all. Accepting my humanity and dignity is table stakes, not up for discussion.
But then
> And if you dehumanize me, by whatever metric you hold dear, say that I'm a Dreamer, or Trans, or not a member of your race or religion, then I'm sorry, but I don't care to listen to you at all.
Your second point is exactly the sort of reasoning that lands us in disagreement paralysis territory. Politics aside (though I suspect our politics are largely aligned) the people on the other side of the table, rightly or wrongly, feel the exact same way and feel just as strongly.
I don't know how to fix disagreement paralysis but I am all but certain it won't be fixed by refusing to listen to one another.
His basic point was that a tolerant society can not tolerate intolerance.
It's often referred to the paradox of tolerance, and is widely accepted as lacking logical or practical flaws.
Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
Note this: "I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force"
It's speaking about philosophies, not physical actions.
As for disagreement paralysis, that's a product of a lack of charity on all sides. Presumably a bunch of ethical scholars will know better.
I honestly don't know what your last point is about.
Which is exactly what was not done with the person who got removed.
Put another way, why tolerate the intolerant?
Because unless the intolerance are initiating or calling for violence, that's literally what being tolerant means.
There is a big difference between tolerating people who have views different to your own and tolerating people who actively want to put an end to you and your views.
The latter group deserves no tolerance, because it means the inevitable destruction of your own group.
How tolerant are you of the views of ISIS? Or the KKK? Or Combat 18?
Do you tolerate all these groups and their views? I sure as shit don't.
So you don't think we should allow Muslim immigration? The Islamic religion has many intolerant precepts, so by your argument we should not be inviting it into our tolerant societies.
> There is a big difference between tolerating people who have views different to your own and tolerating people who actively want to put an end to you and your views.
Is there? I don't see a difference at all, as long as violence is not part of "putting an end to you and your views".
> How tolerant are you of the views of ISIS? Or the KKK? Or Combat 18?
I'm tolerant of any view that doesn't call for violence. ISIS should be fought because they are violent, not because they have intolerant views. The KKK and Combat 18 should be fought when they engage in or call for violence, not because they are intolerant of non-whites.
There's no grey area here, the dividing line of what constitutes tolerance is quite clear: violence and inciting violence is unacceptable, and anything else is permissible free speech that should be fought only with speech. That's the very bedrock of peaceful democratic republics.
Where did I say I didn't want Muslim immigration? I'm totally fine with Muslims. Most Muslims have met are very tolerant because they don't take their religion too seriously, like most Christians.
They pick and choose which bits they want to believe in, ignoring the bits don't jive with modern life and their personal attitudes towards life, sex and other people. Their basic human instincts always beat their religion in the end.
I might think their religion is a batshit crazy comfort blanket just like I do Judaism and Christianity, but that doesn't make them intolerant (in my view). Of course some will use their religion to excuse their intolerance. That;s true of many groups.
In that case I'd rather just not engage with those people.
Your post heavily implies that you equate ISIS with all Muslims though. Or perhaps you are suggesting that all Muslims are intolerant?
Because I sure as shit am not. I can't see why else you you would accuse me of something I never said unless you yourself have made these prejudicial equivalences in your head.
> Is there? I don't see a difference at all, as long as violence is not part of "putting an end to you and your views".
Of course violence is a part of it. How else would you end a group of people and their views? A sternly worded letter?
The violently intolerant are the ones I'm talking about. ISIS, KKK, white supremacists, neo-nazise etc.
I won't engage with these people, but they often leave you no choice. I have no tolerance for them, just like they don't for me.
It's the natural conclusion of not wanting to introduce intolerance into a tolerant milieu. But you've now qualified this claim with the concept of treating people as individuals.
So will you extend the same courtesy to white supremacists? No doubt there are white supremacists who also don't take it too seriously, and similarly pick and choose which parts they want to believe based on their "basic human instincts [that] always beat their religion in the end".
Somehow I doubt it. For some reason, the intolerant white supremacist beliefs don't get the same benefit of the doubt as other intolerant religions. You can't have it both ways. You can't suggest we should treat people as individuals and not judge them on their adherence to some professed beliefs, and then turn around and do the same to another group of people.
> Your post heavily implies that you equate ISIS with all Muslims though.
Really? Which part exactly? Be precise.
> How else would you end a group of people and their views? A sternly worded letter?
By convincing everyone that you're right and they're wrong of course. If you convince every white supremacist that they're wrong (or enough of them), then white supremacy ends.
The part where you accused me of being against Muslim immigration just because I said I was anti-ISIS.
You equated the two in your head. There is no other reason you could have made that accusation otherwise.
And white supremacists want an end to anyone who isn't white. That doesn't mean they want to convince non-whites to start being white, does it?
No, it means genocide, and I feel like you are being deliberately obtuse now.
I made no accusation. I inferred a straightforward conclusion from one of your unqualified claims about the dangers of importing intolerance into a tolerant milieu.
* White supremacy sometimes argues for violence and is intolerant of some types of people, so you don't want to accept white supremacists in your tolerant society.
* By formal analogy, Islam sometimes argues for violence and is intolerant of some types of people, so you also shouldn't want Muslims in your tolerant society.
The argument is the same, but you've asserted a different conclusion in each case. This is a special pleading fallacy. I've explained this twice now, so I really can't be more clear.
> And white supremacists want an end to anyone who isn't white
Not true, and it shows that you don't really know anything about the white supremacist movement, just like many people who hate Muslims don't know really know anything about Islam.
The fact that some white supremacists claim they would rather do that than simply kill everybody that doesn't look like them doesn't make pro-racism a valid viewpoint.
It's not a valid viewpoint anymore than pro-rape is a valid viewpoint. When you are arguing from the position of other races being lesser than you, you have lost all credibility and nobody is going to listen to you.
But you go ahead and tell me how peaceful and lovely some white supremacists are.
Allow me to rephrase: "When you argue from a position that other religions are lesser than you, you have lost all credibility and nobody is going to listen to you."
Everything you've just said applies equally to a literal interpretation of Islamic dogma, to which many Muslims subscribe. So I ask again, as you seem fine with the forceful suppression or expulsion of white supremacists, by parity of reasoning, you must conclude the same result for Muslims or you are special pleading.
So you have one of three choices:
1. Admit your fallacious reasoning that you would like to treat Muslims and white supremacists differently despite having no rational argument justifying this
2. Admit that tolerance of both Muslims and white supremacists is justified.
3. Admit that intolerance of both white supremacists and Muslisms is justified.