> Well-intentioned professors were being fired because their scientific conclusions didn’t match the consensus liberal reality occupied by your average undergraduate
Did this actually happen? Even Jordan Peterson retired by his own choice (rather than complete some kind of professionalism course). I can't think of any examples but would be interested to know.
Someone on another blog recently brought up "professors being fired for saying there were only two sexes" and I went searching for examples. I found three since 2019, and one was just a complaint from some students that was dismissed by the University. The other two were in private Universities in red states, and I'm not exactly sure what the context was. I'm a professor myself don't think there has been any sort of epidemic of firing professors, just the usual small-degree noise that you'll find attached to any controversial issue.
My overall conclusion was that these were extremely rare occurrences that got blown up into a massive talking point by people who wanted to push a conservative ideology that (not at all coincidentally) seems determined to rain fire on academic freedom.
I also looked a bit and found something similar. And in one or two cases, there was some kind of legitimate professional ethical issues that seemed at least ambiguous to me (e.g. the professor was speaking at a public event as a representative of the university, not just tweeting something out generically). The extent to which any of these individuals were "well-intentioned" is also highly questionable. To a very good approximation I think it is reasonable to say "no, this literally did not happen".
You can definitely find examples of folks being fired for their opinions on e.g. the causes and most effective treatments for gender dysphoria. But I'm not familiar enough with any single case to be able to say with certainty that their termination was wrong, that their opinion was fact-based, etc.
I think this is one of the failure modes of launching ideas and rhetoric into public, relatively impersonal spaces, where it can be copied and remixed / reposted without your control (maybe this is a big part of what we mean by "discourse"). Easy to take one piece of communicative technology (an anti-woke essay) and run with it, ignoring the author.
As Scott pointed out in one of his essays, people don't personally know people on "the other side". (He didn't know any young earth creationists, was his example, IIRC.) Not 100% true, but true enough. I think a root problem of American politics is a lack of trust between the Red and Blue cultures, to the point where they don't listen to the same media (the same "ideas and rhetoric launched into public, relatively impersonal spaces"). High-quality interpersonal relationships can go farther than even high-quality writing in fostering trust and thus convergence on the same mental world, I think.
I guess if you're going to put out writing publicly, it makes sense to not feed bad emotions, as you say. Also maybe good to think about what cultures foreign or opposed to you might see in them.
Scott cares deeply about right and wrong and takes moral principles as literally true. So he takes progressive demands for purity and self sacrifice personally and seriously in a way even many of
their own adherents don’t- this is seen most clearly in his early writings against online feminism where it feels like he’s trying to justify his right to have any sexual self at all. Reading him is sometimes like watching the master morality and slave morality wrestling inside of one person and slave morality often starts with the upper hand.
This is pretty common for a certain kind of nerd about moral philosophy. Many such cases.
This gives his anti woke writings a real power but it means he’s got a real blind spot for fellow travelers who don’t have his same scrupulousness. He curses wokeness to not have a panic attack every time he interacts with a person of color, then he gets likes and shares from SmallMustacheManFan420
You've really made me think about writing and writers' responsibilities, thanks. I like your point that it's more about feelings- than facts-spreading, I think that's bang on.
I don't think Scott Alexander provided any real aid to Trump due to having essays shared by the MAGA. They, after all, also shared with each other the worst excesses of the woke, and that with much more frequency, so Scott was right that in the end, the institutions were dysfunctional and the backlash was coming anyway, even if the edgy heterodox center had never existed.
I'm not liking this circle-the-wagons reaction from the left to Trump, the left did play a role in things turning out like this, one much bigger than the edgy heterodox center, and they're in serious trouble if they think they don't need to change to handle this crisis. It's why I'm liking the abundance liberals as a faction, they seem like something new.
Anyway, very decent odds AI flips the gameboard and politics stop being a thing.
I'll agree that no one person is responsible for the Trump administration. Elon probably did the most, but even without him, there are secular forces pushing Trump into power. Even if Trump himself didn't exist, there's a good chance we'd be staring down some other autocrat right now.
It's hard to weigh individual responsibility in the face of gigantic social forces. Should a single Trump voter feel guilty (assuming they're repentant)? Changing their vote wouldn't have changed the outcome.
I think the answer is still "yes". Our individual actions still matter. Whether we contribute to or stand against the storm still matters. In particular, second order effects matter--my vote/opinion/writing affect the people around me, and they affect the people around them, etc.
This is a pretty tricky problem though, and I don't think our naive understanding of "culpability" is well suited to it.
Yeah. The internet has been / can be great for individuals to find "their people." But it has been terrible in as much as people can create grievance culture.
As a white man, though, the White Male Victimhood Complex is the most absurd.
You give far too much credence to Scott and the rationalist movement. And far too much credence this stupid online narrative about "illiberal leftist overreach". Dudes like Bo Winegard are not noble researchers seeking truth despite the taboos placed on them by some conspiracy of leftist radicals. They're firmly outside the consensus of the scientific community. The only reason these narratives get play is because the "rationalists" are a bunch of auto didactic pseuds stuck in their own echo chamber.
I do now feel clever for knowing what Scott’s mistake was. Thanks!
> Well-intentioned professors were being fired because their scientific conclusions didn’t match the consensus liberal reality occupied by your average undergraduate
Did this actually happen? Even Jordan Peterson retired by his own choice (rather than complete some kind of professionalism course). I can't think of any examples but would be interested to know.
Someone on another blog recently brought up "professors being fired for saying there were only two sexes" and I went searching for examples. I found three since 2019, and one was just a complaint from some students that was dismissed by the University. The other two were in private Universities in red states, and I'm not exactly sure what the context was. I'm a professor myself don't think there has been any sort of epidemic of firing professors, just the usual small-degree noise that you'll find attached to any controversial issue.
My overall conclusion was that these were extremely rare occurrences that got blown up into a massive talking point by people who wanted to push a conservative ideology that (not at all coincidentally) seems determined to rain fire on academic freedom.
I also looked a bit and found something similar. And in one or two cases, there was some kind of legitimate professional ethical issues that seemed at least ambiguous to me (e.g. the professor was speaking at a public event as a representative of the university, not just tweeting something out generically). The extent to which any of these individuals were "well-intentioned" is also highly questionable. To a very good approximation I think it is reasonable to say "no, this literally did not happen".
You can definitely find examples of folks being fired for their opinions on e.g. the causes and most effective treatments for gender dysphoria. But I'm not familiar enough with any single case to be able to say with certainty that their termination was wrong, that their opinion was fact-based, etc.
I think this is one of the failure modes of launching ideas and rhetoric into public, relatively impersonal spaces, where it can be copied and remixed / reposted without your control (maybe this is a big part of what we mean by "discourse"). Easy to take one piece of communicative technology (an anti-woke essay) and run with it, ignoring the author.
As Scott pointed out in one of his essays, people don't personally know people on "the other side". (He didn't know any young earth creationists, was his example, IIRC.) Not 100% true, but true enough. I think a root problem of American politics is a lack of trust between the Red and Blue cultures, to the point where they don't listen to the same media (the same "ideas and rhetoric launched into public, relatively impersonal spaces"). High-quality interpersonal relationships can go farther than even high-quality writing in fostering trust and thus convergence on the same mental world, I think.
I guess if you're going to put out writing publicly, it makes sense to not feed bad emotions, as you say. Also maybe good to think about what cultures foreign or opposed to you might see in them.
Scott cares deeply about right and wrong and takes moral principles as literally true. So he takes progressive demands for purity and self sacrifice personally and seriously in a way even many of
their own adherents don’t- this is seen most clearly in his early writings against online feminism where it feels like he’s trying to justify his right to have any sexual self at all. Reading him is sometimes like watching the master morality and slave morality wrestling inside of one person and slave morality often starts with the upper hand.
This is pretty common for a certain kind of nerd about moral philosophy. Many such cases.
This gives his anti woke writings a real power but it means he’s got a real blind spot for fellow travelers who don’t have his same scrupulousness. He curses wokeness to not have a panic attack every time he interacts with a person of color, then he gets likes and shares from SmallMustacheManFan420
You've really made me think about writing and writers' responsibilities, thanks. I like your point that it's more about feelings- than facts-spreading, I think that's bang on.
I don't think Scott Alexander provided any real aid to Trump due to having essays shared by the MAGA. They, after all, also shared with each other the worst excesses of the woke, and that with much more frequency, so Scott was right that in the end, the institutions were dysfunctional and the backlash was coming anyway, even if the edgy heterodox center had never existed.
I'm not liking this circle-the-wagons reaction from the left to Trump, the left did play a role in things turning out like this, one much bigger than the edgy heterodox center, and they're in serious trouble if they think they don't need to change to handle this crisis. It's why I'm liking the abundance liberals as a faction, they seem like something new.
Anyway, very decent odds AI flips the gameboard and politics stop being a thing.
I'll agree that no one person is responsible for the Trump administration. Elon probably did the most, but even without him, there are secular forces pushing Trump into power. Even if Trump himself didn't exist, there's a good chance we'd be staring down some other autocrat right now.
It's hard to weigh individual responsibility in the face of gigantic social forces. Should a single Trump voter feel guilty (assuming they're repentant)? Changing their vote wouldn't have changed the outcome.
I think the answer is still "yes". Our individual actions still matter. Whether we contribute to or stand against the storm still matters. In particular, second order effects matter--my vote/opinion/writing affect the people around me, and they affect the people around them, etc.
This is a pretty tricky problem though, and I don't think our naive understanding of "culpability" is well suited to it.
Well. I wonder what you'll make of an essay I've roiling in my head: Trumpism as the Liberal Shadow. Ever done shadow work?
Yeah I think that'd be an interesting article!
The White Male Victimhood Complex is powerful, seductive, and highly ego-boosting.
I think this statement stands even without "White Male" :)
That said, there does seem to be a contemporary trend here.
Yeah. The internet has been / can be great for individuals to find "their people." But it has been terrible in as much as people can create grievance culture.
As a white man, though, the White Male Victimhood Complex is the most absurd.
You give far too much credence to Scott and the rationalist movement. And far too much credence this stupid online narrative about "illiberal leftist overreach". Dudes like Bo Winegard are not noble researchers seeking truth despite the taboos placed on them by some conspiracy of leftist radicals. They're firmly outside the consensus of the scientific community. The only reason these narratives get play is because the "rationalists" are a bunch of auto didactic pseuds stuck in their own echo chamber.
Ever generous. I think the wide streak of unrecognized self-pity in Siskind's makeup will continue to tell.
Hi Max, did you see my DM? Lol sorry to be that commenter.
Hah no worries, just replied!