if open debate is truly desirable, we should be concerned not just about government suppression of unpopular views, but about non-governmental suppression. As chilling effects go, “I would speak out, but I don’t want to risk going to jail” is not all that different from “I would speak out, but I don’t want to risk losing my friends and my livelihood.” The end result is the same—less speech, less debate, less openness.
His point is that we should be troubled by private actors suppressing speech, even though that is not a technical violation of the first amendment. I agree.
After resigning as Mozilla CEO, Brendan Eich went on to create the Brave browser based on Open Source Google Chromium technology over Mozilla technology and emphasizing privacy/security compared to Google Chrome. We are all better off because of this. Vindictive behavior in the market often backfires. In my opinion, Mozilla and Google will suffer more from their actions than will Brendan Eich or James Damore. Voice and Exit work extremely well in the market but mostly when those actions are aligned with the values being expressed.
There are lots of things you could say that would lose you your friends or your job. This is unavoidable, and so not objectionable, unfortunate, bad. But there should be some degree of social tolerance for diverse opinions, and Richwine is saying that we now have too little (I agree). By the way, it is far from clear that previous generations had any more social tolerance than we have now.
I guess I tend to think Damore case is lot closer to the Colin Kaetpatrick case of free speech than the Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich for giving to Prop 8 in 2008. Both Damore and Kaepernick speech did put company assets and sales at risk so their speech became a problem for the company. Damore’s comment on women emotional state as part of the memo made it Exhibit A in sex discrimation lawsuit. And Colin K. kneeling during the National Anthem could have made the military, $50M of advertising, upset. (And it always hit me as really dumb for quarterback whose health was dependent five linemen must risk their health to protect to you.)
There is a good reason why in the workplace, it is not wise to discuss religion or politics and when co-workers bring it up it is best to nod and transition to the work topic. (Why Google had boards to discuss politics is beyond me.)
Freedom of speech is great but knowing when to self-censor is Golden!
One key difference between Damore and Kaepernick is that Damore’s essay was not a public protest. It was posted on an internal Google discussion board. Google had actively encouraged employees to ‘bring your whole self to work’ and to engage in free-wheeling discussions on those boards. Damore did not publish or leak his own memo outside the company — that was done by others. With respect to Google management and ‘bring your whole self’, Damore’s mistake was — as Animal House memorably put it — “You f**ked up! You trusted us!”
Well, the “Bring Yourself To Work” was extremely bad policy and they were sitting on a time bombs and Damore’s work is well put together in general. Most private workplaces is not the right place for these debates and I believe Google has wisely ended this.
And yea he probably got several millions for this treatment.
They’re totally different. Your friends and employer are also individuals who are entitled to make their own choices and associate with you or not. Are you saying that if I choose not to associate with someone because I find their views distasteful or even harmful I’m suppressing speech? Am I under a moral obligation to associate with people who themselves ostracize other people for having the wrong skin color? Why?
Hazel,
There is a difference between who “you” choose to associate with, and how much a major corporation–let alone an entire industry–should police the off-workplace speech of its employees. If not just the First Amendment’s legal guarantees, but even the moral or aspirational principle of free speech, only apply narrowly to direct coercion by the State, there won’t be that much free speech in society left for them to apply to.
For example, the Cold War era blacklist of leftist screenwriters has generally been remembered, and presented, as an egregious violation of free speech. And yet, none of them were sent to jail for being Communist (a few were for contempt of Congress). For the most part, they found themselves, in today’s parlance, “de-platformed,” i.e, barred from working in their chosen career path. Those pushing the “de-platforming” felt–as seriously and sincerely as you feel about the ideas you dislike–that exponents a of a system of thought represented at that time by Joseph Stalin ought not to have the-then most powerful platform in the world (Hollywood) for their opinions. On what basis would you criticize that view? Or would you?
I don’t really have a problem with the blacklist, personally.
Corporation are entitled to fire people for any reason they want, although it probably isn’t a good idea unless the off-workplace speech is affecting the work environment.
In other words: you think it’s insufficient that people merely recognize the legal rights of people of other races (or at least black people); you require a *culture* of racial tolerance. You might even say, even if the state recognizes everyone’s rights, if every private institution refuses to hire, buy from, or sell to members of a particular race, life is hardly better than if the stare were engaged in racial repression. One could also imagine this with the principle of religious tolerance: if you’re a catholic in a country where all the businesses are Protestant and refuse to hire Catholics, all legal religious tolerance means is, instead of convert or be imprisoned, it’s convert or starve.
Now, apply that same principle to freedom of speech, in particular political speech. Why is that so fundamentally different from the other two examples of extrapolating a cultural value from a political one?
I’d also add that most of the examples of people ostracized did not try to ostracize anyone. Charles Murray didn’t ostracize black people, Brendan Eich didn’t ostracize gay people, James Damore didn’t ostracize women. Most cases don’t fit the mold you’re trying to impose on the phenomenon under discussion.
It’s not fundamentally different. What you have is in fact a choice: You can either have a culture that tolerates racial minorities, OR you can have a culture that tolerates racism. Your choice.
Now I will agree that it’s important to carefully distinguish between respectfully expressing unpopular views and acting upon them. But in reality, there’s kind of continuum from overt racism, to people expressing subconsciously held stereotypes, to careful academic discussion, and different people are going to draw the line in different places.
To me, that line falls on the boundery that other people’s physical existence/nature should be more tolerated than things that people think or say. People can’t help walking around in public with black skin, but they are totally capable of holding their tongue. So when someone’s speech creates an intolerant environment for someone based solely on their existence, then the priority should be given to tolerating people’s existence. (Similarly, actions give way to speech – and do remember that we’re not talk about physically punishing people for their speech, we’re talking about other people choosing not to associate with people).
To put this more succinctly – someones right to walk around in public being black, without being ostracized, supercedes another persons right to walk around in public insulting black people, without being ostracized.
(Again, we’re talking about social norms regarding what should be tolerated here.)
It seems a lot depends on the definition of “insulting.” “You are a dirty nigger.” should not be tolerated. It is an insult aimed at a specific person with no evidence. (I assume this is not a Chris Rock situation)
On the other hand, a person might say, “On average, people of African descent are not as smart as people of European descent.” That can certainly be perceived as insulting. But it seems to me that there is value in allowing that to be said, and looking for evidence to confirm or disconfirm.
If any potential statement of fact that someone feels insulted by is for that reason prohibited, our life is impoverished and becoming hypersensitive is encouraged.
Or they might say “black people are stupid”. These aren’t usually clinical academic discussions where nobody has a vested interest in the outcome. The US has a long history involving oppression of black people and a lot of white people even have aspects of their identity bound up in beliefs about white superiority.
It’s sort of unrealistic to think that we could have a civil academic discussion about which racial minorities in our society are more or less intelligent then others. Same for men vs. women – there’s a long history of women being shut out of the workforce or various professions in our culture. Men have a vested interest in thinking that they are more intelligent, or have greater ability.
People have their identities invested in attitudes about race and gender. It’s not really possible to have clinical academic discussions about these subjects because everyone has deep vested interests in proving that their own group is superior or victimized.
Meanwhile, while academic white people are having a debate about the relative intelligence of blacks, a lot of less-intelligent whites are going to use that information to disparage and ostracize blacks. Isn’t think clearly what has taken place with respect to The Bell Curve? Whatever Charles Murray’s intentions were, the book has been ammunition for white supremacists.
It’s pretty unrealistic to think you can debate the relative intelligence of ethnic subgroups and have that not be fuel for conflict between ethnic subgroups.
Agreed. Everyone has vested interests. Everyone has emotions. I’d go so far as to say that no, none, zilch, nada seemingly academic discussion is without vested interests, emotions, and the possibility of abuse.
Is this one area where the emotion is so high, and the possibility for abuse so high that discussion should not take place?
“It’s pretty unrealistic to think you can debate the relative intelligence of ethnic subgroups and have that not be fuel for conflict between ethnic subgroups.”
The guy who said all of the quotes below built one of the most successful nations in the world out of a fishing village. One were all races have benefited and live in far more harmony than our own.
Let’s be clear. When you say “this can’t be debated” what you really mean is “this can’t be debated in a way which will lead to the state of affairs I desire”. It could lead to a state of affairs that was beneficial, if different, then what you desire.
While I too share pessimism about this for a variety of reasons, it’s not impossible. And the reasons it might fail are driven by people like you. You want it to fail because “success” in a Singapore sense isn’t the form of “success” you want.
I’ve read leftist critiques of The Bell Curve that don’t question its math. You know what two things I got out of them:
1) Human Accomplishment was Murray’s most racist book
2) “A Place for Everyone” is not a place I (the critic) will accept
Basically, Human Accomplishment says that stunning accomplishment can be objectively measured and that it’s been produced by a very small group of people, nearly all of whom belong to a handful of ethnic groups.
This they took massive issues with. If we accept this fact, we accept that most of the other races that aren’t part of that list basically aren’t contributing much to the forward march of human progress. The critic was not willing to accept this, EVEN IF ITS TRUE.
This tied in with #2, which is that the critic was unwilling to accept that his place of “dignity” (or the place of any “group” he designated) was objectively less than someone else. As we’ve already stated value is objective and individuals and groups have measurably more or less of it. Not matter how nice or caring or kind or dignified you phrase it, that’s the facts. The critic was unwilling to accept this, EVEN IF ITS TRUE.
And so the bottom line here was that he can’t accept Murray’s facts not because they aren’t true, but because if they are true then the critic intends to reject THE WORLD ITSELF. If that is the world, he would rather burn it all down then try to work to better what he has. This is a motivation as old as Satan’s fall. Crab mentality all the way down.
This is always what I’ve felt we are up against. Not an unwillingness of accepting facts. But a willingness to burn it all down to spite those facts. It’s why I don’t consider merely getting people to agree with the facts matters. You can agree with the facts and still have that nihilistic attitude. Or you can agree with the facts and not have the courage to stand up to those that have that nihilistic attitude.
At the end of the day, it’s all about the choices we make. My pessimism comes from the fact that evolved, rather than divine, man doesn’t seem up to that task. He behaves the way his context demands of him, at last at scale. It worked in Singapore because of the context, and it won’t work here because of the context.
—
“There are deep and abiding differences between groups. And whatever we do, we must remember that in Singapore, the Malays feel they are being asked to compete unfairly, that they are not ready for the competition against the Chinese and the Indians and the Eurasians. They will not admit or they cannot admit to themselves that, in fact, as a result of history, they are a different gene pool and they do not have these qualities that can enable them to enter the same race.”
—
Referring to opposition MP Chiam See Tong’s views about a shifting ratio of races and a possible composition of one-third each for Chinese, Malays and Indians, Mr Lee said:
“Let me tell you what I would think if I were an Indian. Why not 76 per cent Indians, 15 per cent Malays and 7 per cent Chinese? That is better still.
“But you know this is the real world. Let us just maintain status quo. And we have to maintain it or there will be a shift in the economy, both the economic performance and the political backdrop which makes that economic performance possible.”
Mr Lee said statistics showed there will be significant differences in the economy of Singapore if the ratio were transposed.
“You look at the educational levels of the performers. It has got to do with culture, nature and so many other factors. But year after year, this is the end result. Let’s leave well alone. The formula has worked. Keep it. And of course the founder members are all of us, whether we are Indians, Chinese or Malays.”
1989 National Day Rally speech, quoted in The Straits Times, August 21st, 1989, p. 17
—
The Bell curve is a fact of life. The blacks on average score 85 per cent on IQ and it is accurate, nothing to do with culture. The whites score on average 100. Asians score more … the Bell curve authors put it at least 10 points higher. Ths are realities that, if you do not accept, will lead to frustration because you will be spending money on wrong assumptions and the results cannot follow.
… Supposing we had hidden the truth and taken the American approach and said, all men are equal. Then they (The less able or well-off) will demand equal results. And when the results are not equal, they will demand more equal treatment.
In TMHI (Google Books).
On the viability of multiracial societies:
I have said openly that if we were 100 per cent Chinese, we would do better. But we are not and never will be, so we live with what we have.
In TMHI (Google Books).
—
I do not believe that the American system of solving the problem stands any chance. First, they deny that there is a difference between the blacks and the whites. Once you deny that, then you’re caught in a bind.
In TMHI (Google Books).
—
You can either have a culture that tolerates racial minorities, OR you can have a culture that tolerates racism.
I have several issues with the above sentence:
1) It’s a false dichotomy. There are many possible societies, including our own, where some degree of tolerance is mixed with some degree of racism.
2) It assumes that tolerating minorities is always good, no matter what they actually do.
3) In the real world, justice for blacks conflicts with justice for asians.
4) It assumes that we have control over the amount of racism in society. Beyond a certain point, long passed, nagging only provokes hostility.
The “some degree of racism” is detrimental to the lives of human beings. Should we just accept that African Americans are going to be somewhat poorer due to a tolerable level of racism? I’d rather that the harms be inflicted upon the people who hold racially “unpopular” views than the people who just have the wrong skin color.
Hazel, do you mean to say that expressing any racist view should be prohibited? If “any level of racism” means that “African Americans are going to be somewhat poorer” and “I’d rather that the harms be inflicted upon the people who hold racially “unpopular” views than the people who just have the wrong skin color”, that seems to be what you are implying.
Or perhaps you mean that while governments should not prohibit such speech, those who say such things should be socially silenced and shunned: “We don’t want that kind here.”
Or something else?
Hazel, you are assuming that racism is the major cause of black underperformance. I am not aware of any data that supports that view. For starters, if it were true, we would expect to see racial disparities much lower in cities where blacks have political power and have elected black governments (e.g. Baltimore and Detroit). That does not seem to be the case.
I think this is the essence of our disagreement: I don’t see any plausible path to reducing racial disparities, and I think that efforts to do so have passed the point of diminishing returns and started provoking dangerous backlash (Trump). So my questions for you are:
1) Do you think racial disparities can be substantially ameliorated?
2) If so, do you have any evidence? Has this ever actually been achieved, anywhere?
3) How do you think the backlash can be managed, keeping in mind that Republicans currently control the Presidency, Senate, and Supreme Court.
Jay claims that Hazel is
You would only expect to see a change in racial disparities if you believe in the efficacy of city-level politicians to enact such change. That is a more tenuous assumption than Hazel’s.
The truth is we don’t know how to build successful nations and we don’t know how to transform societies/communities that are chronically stuck in a suboptimal equilibrium. I am positive that our understanding will improve somewhat and, more importantly, some superior equilibriums will naturally emerge.
I do believe that disparities of all kinds otherwise society level change would not be possible. Thomas Malthus believed poor people were destined to starve because of their innate inability to control their urges. History has proven him wrong despite his rationality. There was nothing wrong with his math, just his assumptions.
“The truth is we don’t know how to build successful nations and we don’t know how to transform societies/communities that are chronically stuck in a suboptimal equilibrium.”
Actually, we do.
Combine a reasonably high average IQ demographic with any sort of market based political economy with some of the basics of the western tradition. Even if you get that combo only partially right, it works pretty well. This is a solved problem, there isn’t a ton of mystery to it.
The primary problem is that while this has worked for whites and Asians, it hasn’t worked for blacks. Nothing has worked for them, and we’ve tried a lot of things in a lot of contexts over a long period. We know genetics is the (main) reason.
“Trying things” isn’t free. I’ve mentioned before that the bill for affirmative action probably amounts to $750k/lifetime to each black. Government subsidies in the form of services received relative to tax revenue is another $750k/lifetime to each black. That is a HUGE bill. The Bell Curve is full of examples of things done to help blacks, but outlines what the cost of those things were (for instance, measurably worse job performance).
We’ve mostly put up with it (with grumbling) because that cost can be spread out. Over a single year that impact is just $20k. And since there are 7+ whites for each black, it’s only a few grand each per year. If immigration didn’t add to this burden, it would probably be sustainable even if an unjust waste.
So this is what we are left with. The overconfidence of genetic determinists like asdf or the overconfidence of blank slate social justice activists; both equally delusional.
So let’s take the historic rise and fall of various societies within the Western tradition. Greece -> Rome -> Venice -> Portugal/Spain -> Netherlands/England -> United States. Are you saying that each transition was due to a shift in IQ? Jared Diamond’s biogeography had no role? David Ricardo’s comparative advantage had no role? Ian Morris’ energy innovation had no role?
asdf, you are stuck on an interpretation of The Bell Curve that the author’s never promoted and were careful not to claim. You are assuming that anyone that disagrees with you is a social justice progressives that has not read the book or dismisses the underlying statistics.
The only thing wrong with The Bell Curve is the genetic determinism you read between the lines instead of the individualism that the authors made explicit. Your culture war cosplay is tiring.
“Greece -> Rome -> Venice -> Portugal/Spain -> Netherlands/England -> United States. Are you saying that each transition was due to a shift in IQ?”
No I’m not, and have never said that.
I’m unaware of The Bell Curve’s view on the decline of Classical Athens. Because it doesn’t exist and isn’t relevant to the discussion.
In the modern world, 1st world societies arise when proper demographics combine with a fairly wide range of political/economic equilibriums along some basic models we are familiar with. This is my contention. Arnold has also voiced this opinion before as well. I believe this has been empirically proven.
If you don’t have one of those ingredients, either the demographics (Africa) or the basic governmental systems (North Korea), you can’t have a first world society. Not at any scale at least (I exempt tax havens, states sitting on incredible sums of natural resources, or other small exceptions to the rule).
I’ve quoted The Bell Curve directly at length for all of my assertions. If there is a particular issue where you think I have presented them inaccurately, state it and I will refute it with direct reference to the text. Where I have philosophical differences with them I have laid those out in plain site. Factually I’ve never stated anything that isn’t in the text, nor have I ever claimed Charles had a policy preference that can’t be directly found in the text.
What’s tiring is your pearl clutching. You engage in name calling and ad hominem because you don’t have a good retort.
asdf, every time you make a factual claim about blacks and genetic determinism I attempt to correct you. Your latest statement was the following:
We DO NOT KNOW that genetics is the main reason. The Bell Curve, like all careful studies, claims that it is a combination of genetic and environmental factors.
@RAD:The Bell Curve, like all careful studies, claims that it is a combination of genetic and environmental factors.
Actually it’s a good deal more specific than that. It’s roughly 50 percent genetic, 10 percent controllable environmental factors, and 40 percent uncontrollable environmental factors, according to that book. The correlation between unrelated adopted siblings (same family, different genes) is considered “controllable environment”. And that analysis only considered white women (to avoid confounders), but blacks are probably similar.
Regardless of the reasons, if the problem was fundamentally cultural we would expect to see different results across different cultures. When 21st century California has pretty much the same racial disparity in education as 1950s Missouri, I start to doubt that racism is a major cause.
“we should be troubled by private actors suppressing speech”
Arnold, please elaborate! I am troubled by anyone “suppressing” anyone… but it seems there is a difference between “I will suppress you from saying things unpleasant to me” and “I decline to allow you to use my platform for saying things unpleasant to me.” Why is the latter “suppression” in your view?
Free speech is worth more than a job.
“If open debate is truly desriable” . . . Well that’s a pretty big “if” and a pretty stark dichotomy. I think it would be very far-reaching (i.e. false) to say that open debate is desirable everywhere and all the time. It is more accurate to say that it is desirable that any opinion can find some outlet to be debated in a timely way. This formulation is consistent with quite a bit of restrictions on free speech. However, chilling effects and the vast power of the central government make a first amendment prudent. We can’t trust the government to censor judiciously. The hope is that private institutions will be able to censor judiciously but not decisively.