so when someone who's used to these norms comes online and sees domain experts conducting discourse like _this_
the skepticism they might feel toward a knowledge generation process that operates on such rails seems pretty reasonable to me
its practically barbarism
these are *really good* questions to ask if you're trying to have a productive conversation and imo they were exceptionally well developed and ingrained among certain cohorts, and where rationalism worked well i think these norms deserve substantial credit for that
why are we arguing?
what aims do we have: is it about convincing? about a status flex?
what inferential gap might we be trying to bridge?
is this a positive or normative matter?
explicitly, how confident we? what evidence might convince us to change our positions?
epistemic status: im just speculating bro
potentially one reason the rationalist diaspora somewhat disrespects academia in some ways is that imo rationalism cultivated legitimately better norms around discourse. in fact, imo, it was rationalism's greatest contribution
🧵
A few things I've learned participating in discussions over regulations of trans athletes in elite
1⃣Inclusion is a matter of human rights
If society decides trans women are women
Then sport must accommodate
Full stop
Sport is not a human rights-free zone but a part of society
Sydney Film Festival and its indigenous film makers push back against accusations that it is white supremacist and racist @ConceptualJames https://t.co/2zDfPodIsf
Are there good long-form articles or papers on reasonable limits to academic freedom?
It feels like the catch-all term is being abused to excuse all kinds of abhorrent behavior and creating a hostile learning environment for non-dominant groups.