Well, yes, it’s clear we shouldn’t illegalize false (or irrational) beliefs. The idea is rather that holding irrational beliefs is subject to criticism in a way that having idiosyncratic tastes (e.g., liking maple syrup on pizza) is not...
-
-
-
In that sense, beliefs are open to “policing” in a way tastes aren’t, where policing consists in rational criticism. And you can’t escape such “policing” by claiming I have a right to my own mind. That was what I meant.
-
So, to tie this all back, insofar “policing” of implicit biases consists in criticizing people for irrational beliefs, I’m on board with such policing. And I think this is how many who focus on implicit bias understand things. But I take it this is our point of disagreement.
-
I should not have been drawn back into this. The thread is very clear that I do not mean this. It says what I do mean. It is not in any way ambiguous. Arguing with what people are clearly not saying is pointless. I really am muting you now so I don't attempt to talk to you again
-
Seems reasonable.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.