Mason  🏃‍♂️ ✂️

Literally just "heretic" + "con" and half the internet's like, "Oh thank god! Pitchfork's getting dull at the tips. Which way are the heathens?" https://twitter.com/zebulgar/status/1179228567038840832 …

From what I've seen it's pretty clear the pushback is that the conference, from its very premise/description, seems likely to attract a disproportionate share of assholes. (Not to mention the Thiel association.) Here's some valid critique:https://twitter.com/tomcoates/status/1179261163282030594?s=21 …

It does seem like that, perhaps, but how much of this is projection and guilt by association versus valid critique?

May well be a bit of both. There's a version of this event that I think could be great (though this ain't who I'd have running it). But a sentiment like "banned from other conferences? fuck safe spaces we'd love to have you" of course is gonna raise red flags.

Challenge here is reconciling (both from the event description): "dissent is essential" & "the great majority of heretical thinkers are wrong" How to differentiate the (few) wise visionary heretics from the (majority) crackpots? Not always easy!

Definitely not easy, but if you imagine a scientist saying: “challenging foundational theories is essential” and “most challenges fail” doesn’t it seem less controversial? The controversy here isn’t in what they’re saying, but who we think is saying it. Out-group bias is strong.

True, but it's also common enough to claim 'science' w/o necessarily acting scientifically. Larger convo to be had but strikes me this is why so much IDW-type thinking feels flawed…not b/c ideas are wrong per se but b/c they can seem more concerned w/ provocation than w/ truth.