You said that you agree with Hanania that women's tears have too much power, because progress has to be doen by saying offensive things, and mentioned the theory of evolution as example. I'm stunned by this. Do you think women's tears would have stopped the theory of evolution?
Ultimately, what Hanania referred to was that you can't say blacks are more violent, trans are insane and women are illogical, that's what supposedly "in danger." But I don't see how this would hinder progress? Will AI progress not be made because you can't call trans insane on colleges? This is just absurd. And I don't see how it's even true that women are more emotional on average, I mean the very emotional reactions of many men to the term "toxic masculinity" (Gillette lost billions) shows that many men get offended easily, too (disclaimer: I don't think the term is good, still was never offended by it). If anything, there is more academic freedom today, as we literally had segregation until the 60s.
I really don't think that blaming women's tears for, well, I don't even know, somehow "lack of progress" (?), is anything based on reality. It looks more like another anti-woman rant from someone who confessed that he wanted to enslave women when he was young because of his sexual frustration (Hanania) and then just accepted as truth from someone who still thinks of women as "neurotic" and "hypersensitive" (Caplan).
I mean, there's more *freedom* in a lot of ways--I wouldn't say America was better *overall* in 1960 on libertarian grounds, apart from segregation, women couldn't hold most jobs and being gay was illegal. I don't think there's more *academic* freedom, at least on American campuses, what with DEI statements and articles being retracted on political grounds.
> because progress has to be doen by saying offensive things, and mentioned the theory of evolution as example.
When theories of evolution were proposed in the Renaissance & Enlightenment periods, they were offensive to religion (the main sacred value of that time) because they contradicted the Christian belief that God created life in its present form. It seems plausible that, if the portion of the population engaged in science & philosophy were more inclined toward censorship during this period, then it would have been more difficult for such ideas to be considered seriously.
> But I don't see how this would hinder progress? Will AI progress not be made because you can't call trans insane on colleges? This is just absurd.
It probably won't hinder a lot of scientific/technological progress directly. (Consider the example of Soviet communism, which was undoubtedly more censorious & more contrary to reality than modern American wokeness, but which didn't do much to interrupt the progress of math, physics, chemistry, engineering, other than by the broad disruptions of society caused by the civil war, collectivization, the purges of the late 1930s, &c.) What harmful effects intolerance of offensive speech may have seem to me to be of three types:
1. Suppression of inherently offensive ideas (i.e. ideas that inherently violate a sacred belief). E.g. medical study of the causes of gender & the effectiveness of sex changes in treating it becomes much harder if conclusions incompatible with the current political approach to the issue are labeled offensive & ignored. The set of scientific problems whose solutions may be offensive to wokeness is probably relatively small (e.g. genetic differences between ethnic groups, the causes & neurological effects of homosexuality & transgenderness; research on differences between the sexes could be considered offensive under wokeness but doesn't seem to be being suppressed significantly now); this would be a serious problem if behavioral genetics as a whole or the practical applications thereof were suppressed as offensive, but that doesn't seem to be happening (as far as I know).
2. Suppression of ideas which for historical reasons have become associated with offensiveness. One example of this is the way that many western anthropologists in the mid 20th century rejected some theories of large-scale historical migration (e.g. the Indo-European invasions of Europe & India) because the Nazis had embraced some version of them. There are much worse examples in history, such as Lysenkoism or the Nazi physicists who rejected modern physics because it was developed by Jews, but such enormous blunders seem unlikely as long as educated society doesn't assume that any idea a taboo-violator came up with must therefore be rejected.
3. Indirect effects on institutions or society. A likely present-day example of this is the form of "anti-racism" now often used to support affirmative action, which if taken completely seriously requires that statistically underperforming racial groups be treated as though they are not actually underperforming, with any evidence to the contrary being explained away or ignored; one likely result is rejection of objective measures of performance which would show any differences in performance between racial groups (e.g. the recent trend to devalue standardized tests), & I expect this would also tend to make the people involved less motivated & more willing to accept corruption. This seems like it would probably have the biggest effect overall, but I don't know how much resulting problems would grow if this situation continued unchanged.
> If anything, there is more academic freedom today, as we literally had segregation until the 60s.
This seems like a non sequitur. It's true that black people were mostly excluded from academia before the 1960s, but it's not clear how that would have caused more ideological censorship of the people that were included in academia. (It would mean that some ideas that the excluded people would have come up with don't get invented or considered as soon, but that's not what most people would understand a reduction of "academic freedom" to mean.)
You said that you agree with Hanania that women's tears have too much power, because progress has to be doen by saying offensive things, and mentioned the theory of evolution as example. I'm stunned by this. Do you think women's tears would have stopped the theory of evolution?
Ultimately, what Hanania referred to was that you can't say blacks are more violent, trans are insane and women are illogical, that's what supposedly "in danger." But I don't see how this would hinder progress? Will AI progress not be made because you can't call trans insane on colleges? This is just absurd. And I don't see how it's even true that women are more emotional on average, I mean the very emotional reactions of many men to the term "toxic masculinity" (Gillette lost billions) shows that many men get offended easily, too (disclaimer: I don't think the term is good, still was never offended by it). If anything, there is more academic freedom today, as we literally had segregation until the 60s.
I really don't think that blaming women's tears for, well, I don't even know, somehow "lack of progress" (?), is anything based on reality. It looks more like another anti-woman rant from someone who confessed that he wanted to enslave women when he was young because of his sexual frustration (Hanania) and then just accepted as truth from someone who still thinks of women as "neurotic" and "hypersensitive" (Caplan).
I mean, there's more *freedom* in a lot of ways--I wouldn't say America was better *overall* in 1960 on libertarian grounds, apart from segregation, women couldn't hold most jobs and being gay was illegal. I don't think there's more *academic* freedom, at least on American campuses, what with DEI statements and articles being retracted on political grounds.
> just accepted as truth from someone who still thinks of women as "neurotic" and "hypersensitive" (Caplan).
The studies summarized by https://www.noahsnewsletter.com/p/did-women-in-academia-cause-wokeness & https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/12/opinion/gender-gap-politics.html seem to constitute substantial evidence in favor of the idea that women, on average, tend to be more sensitive to offense & less supportive of free speech.
> because progress has to be doen by saying offensive things, and mentioned the theory of evolution as example.
When theories of evolution were proposed in the Renaissance & Enlightenment periods, they were offensive to religion (the main sacred value of that time) because they contradicted the Christian belief that God created life in its present form. It seems plausible that, if the portion of the population engaged in science & philosophy were more inclined toward censorship during this period, then it would have been more difficult for such ideas to be considered seriously.
> But I don't see how this would hinder progress? Will AI progress not be made because you can't call trans insane on colleges? This is just absurd.
It probably won't hinder a lot of scientific/technological progress directly. (Consider the example of Soviet communism, which was undoubtedly more censorious & more contrary to reality than modern American wokeness, but which didn't do much to interrupt the progress of math, physics, chemistry, engineering, other than by the broad disruptions of society caused by the civil war, collectivization, the purges of the late 1930s, &c.) What harmful effects intolerance of offensive speech may have seem to me to be of three types:
1. Suppression of inherently offensive ideas (i.e. ideas that inherently violate a sacred belief). E.g. medical study of the causes of gender & the effectiveness of sex changes in treating it becomes much harder if conclusions incompatible with the current political approach to the issue are labeled offensive & ignored. The set of scientific problems whose solutions may be offensive to wokeness is probably relatively small (e.g. genetic differences between ethnic groups, the causes & neurological effects of homosexuality & transgenderness; research on differences between the sexes could be considered offensive under wokeness but doesn't seem to be being suppressed significantly now); this would be a serious problem if behavioral genetics as a whole or the practical applications thereof were suppressed as offensive, but that doesn't seem to be happening (as far as I know).
2. Suppression of ideas which for historical reasons have become associated with offensiveness. One example of this is the way that many western anthropologists in the mid 20th century rejected some theories of large-scale historical migration (e.g. the Indo-European invasions of Europe & India) because the Nazis had embraced some version of them. There are much worse examples in history, such as Lysenkoism or the Nazi physicists who rejected modern physics because it was developed by Jews, but such enormous blunders seem unlikely as long as educated society doesn't assume that any idea a taboo-violator came up with must therefore be rejected.
3. Indirect effects on institutions or society. A likely present-day example of this is the form of "anti-racism" now often used to support affirmative action, which if taken completely seriously requires that statistically underperforming racial groups be treated as though they are not actually underperforming, with any evidence to the contrary being explained away or ignored; one likely result is rejection of objective measures of performance which would show any differences in performance between racial groups (e.g. the recent trend to devalue standardized tests), & I expect this would also tend to make the people involved less motivated & more willing to accept corruption. This seems like it would probably have the biggest effect overall, but I don't know how much resulting problems would grow if this situation continued unchanged.
> If anything, there is more academic freedom today, as we literally had segregation until the 60s.
This seems like a non sequitur. It's true that black people were mostly excluded from academia before the 1960s, but it's not clear how that would have caused more ideological censorship of the people that were included in academia. (It would mean that some ideas that the excluded people would have come up with don't get invented or considered as soon, but that's not what most people would understand a reduction of "academic freedom" to mean.)
Progress has a disparate impact.
Men must progress to survive. Women must survive to survive.
You misspelled her name. It's "Katarzyna", not "Katarzynę"