I wonder how much of this is an outgrowth of the current university campus climate where opinions that don't fit into the predominant liberal worldview can't be voiced. I don't mean this as a criticism of liberals or liberalism specifically here, since I realize many conservatives would do the same about issues they care about if they had the power and numbers to.
E Pur Si Muove
21–30 of 853 posts
Re: E Pur Si Muove
#22Maybe in China Sam
had less opportunity talking with people outside his bubble. If the purpose of the visit was to meet and see entrepreneurs then of course he’ll not run into people opposing these ideas. Especially when he doesn’t speak the native languages. Here in the Bay Area most people outside of tech are familiar with it and constantly interacting with “the techies” so it’s harder to exist undisturbed in your bubble.
Re: E Pur Si Muove
#23I think this is a radical simplification of what is a complex problem. Genetic engineering as a whole is known to be an area strewn with moral hazards, and not least harks back to some of the darkest days of 20th century science. Having an ethical outlook isn't a form of heresy, it's a form of societal safety. We need to accept that some of these ideas (probably not all - it's always difficult to get on the right sid…
> We need to accept that some of these ideas are inherently dangerous.
We created atom bombs. Some say AI can destroy humanity (perhaps Sam himself) but here we are, I don’t think you can stop science.. it’s what makes us human.
Re: E Pur Si Muove
#24I think this is a radical simplification of what is a complex problem. Genetic engineering as a whole is known to be an area strewn with moral hazards, and not least harks back to some of the darkest days of 20th century science. Having an ethical outlook isn't a form of heresy, it's a form of societal safety. We need to accept that some of these ideas (probably not all - it's always difficult to get on the right sid…
I think the difference is if you consider the /idea/ inherently dangerous, or the potential /outcome/ dangerous.
Yes, it's subtle, but the current shift in the US is towards ideas being dangrous
Re: E Pur Si Muove
#25Thanks for mentioning this, what you describe isn't "danger" in the bay area, it is just unnecessary opinions.
Re: E Pur Si Muove
#26Well said! Sam posted a great defense of what I view as the second leg of "freedom of speech". There's the legal sense of the term – which is limited to government suppression of speech – and then there's the idea of what private society allows of its own volition.
Re: E Pur Si Muove
#27I think this is a radical simplification of what is a complex problem. Genetic engineering as a whole is known to be an area strewn with moral hazards, and not least harks back to some of the darkest days of 20th century science. Having an ethical outlook isn't a form of heresy, it's a form of societal safety. We need to accept that some of these ideas (probably not all - it's always difficult to get on the right sid…
Having an ethical outlook is a great idea. And it's good to criticise ideas you think are unethical.
The point of the post is that just because a person presents an unethical idea doesn't make that person universally unethical. The point is to separate the ideas from the person presenting them, so that people can feel free to present novel ideas without fearing damage to their reputation if the ideas are unpopular.
Re: E Pur Si Muove
#28I wonder how much of this is an outgrowth of the current university campus climate where opinions that don't fit into the predominant liberal worldview can't be voiced. I don't mean this as a criticism of liberals or liberalism specifically here, since I realize many conservatives would do the same about issues they care about if they had the power and numbers to.
At the meta level this is a symptom of the fact that the polarization of our culture is extremely deep. We are polarized on epistemology, metaphysics, and what it means to be human, with the left favoring various forms of scientific or empirical epistemology and a mutable model of human nature and the right favoring revelatory or traditionalist epistemology and an immutable model of human nature.
The latter is true of the secular right as well. Just substitute "evolution" and "history" for God and mystical revelation. The secular right believes that human inborn characteristics are immutable and culture is a product of evolutionary processes that cannot or should not be rationally understood or modified. All the Neo-racists and HBD types are basically evolutionary-historical conservatives or reactionaries who see inequality as a revealed result of a process that is beyond human understanding.
It's getting to the point that it is not even possible for the two sides to communicate because they do not agree on language, logic, or basic rules of discourse. The left and the right are cognitively inhabiting different universes.
Humans subjectively experience extreme cognitive dissonance as actual discomfort. I think this explains the intolerance. People are emotionally reacting to the level of cognitive dissonance this divide generates as if ideas from the opposing side are physical attacks. I agree that the right is no different. Go into one of their bubbles and voice liberal ideas and you'll get the same reaction Milo gets on a Berkeley college campus.
Re: E Pur Si Muove
#29California has been ridiculous for as long as I can remember.
Come to New York, we have 20 million or so people who don't give a fuck about you and what you do all day as long as you don't clog up the subway stairs. It's quite lovely.
Re: E Pur Si Muove
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem isn't the critique of ideas, most people are happy to have an intellectually honest debate about their merits and shortcomings. The issue is instantly accusing someone of serious moral failings and painting them as a social pariah to be ostracized, the instant they put forward a locally unorthodox view. One group is constantly expanding the area of topics that are taboo, the other believes that having tab…
Maybe Sam just has serious moral failings? If everywhere he goes people have a visceral reaction to what he's saying maybe there is some ethical shortcoming there. He's the common denominator in all the situations.
The point is that it's not everywhere, it's very much specific to the Bay area. The claim is that the Bay was a lot more open to controversial ideas in the past, and it's closing down as of today to only leave room for local ideological orthodoxy. Many of those ideas aren't controversial in most other parts of the world.
The point, I'm assuming, is that Sam doesn't want to pack up his stuff and leave, he wants the Bay to become more open.