I'm really confused by arguments that try to tell people that they are morally obligated to tolerate people saying bigoted stuff. They always act like we as individuals have control over some kind of "invisible hand" of the zeitgeist.
-
Show this thread
-
That there is some kind of spiritual force that is "making the bigotry heretical" and that we are obligated as individuals to control the spiritual force.
1 reply 1 retweet 7 likesShow this thread -
But in fact what they're saying is that if someone tells my friend they are evil, I am supposed to be cool with it in order to "make space" for "innovative ideas"
1 reply 1 retweet 17 likesShow this thread -
Maybe when we tolerate the idea that certain people are inferior, we are failing to "make space" for all of the innovative ideas that those people can bring to the table?
1 reply 11 retweets 45 likesShow this thread -
Maybe we should consider that environments that tolerate inequality and casual consideration of the idea that inequality is "natural", we are pushing out a huge number of people who bring new ideas to the table?
1 reply 3 retweets 24 likesShow this thread -
Maybe we already have enough ideas from the kind of people who need to be able to say those kinds of things in order to thrive, and not enough ideas from people being demoralized and pushed away by all of the casual bigotry?
1 reply 5 retweets 40 likesShow this thread -
Maybe it's ok to let people loudly and clearly push back against ideas like Damore's Google memo? Maybe trying to silence broad based disagreement with Damore's bigotry is suppressing important ideas?
3 replies 3 retweets 36 likesShow this thread
Thank's for saying this. I wrote this in response to it yesterday. Kinda bad form to ask you to read, but wanted to try since you're visible and clearly vocal.https://dispatches.artifexdeus.com/dear-sam-altman-e3028db79802 …
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.