
Can Things Be Both Popular and Silenced? - raleighm
http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/05/23/can-things-be-both-popular-and-silenced/
======
Radim
> _“That other monkey has status that should be my status!” – nobody ever went
> broke peddling that._

Well said. Who needs facts when you can fling shit at the opposing group?

It feels our older biological subsystems don't know what to do with the latest
evolutionary upstart: rationality. Some tension there.

I like the distinction between "obviously true" and "common knowledge" the
article draws:

> _My favorite Soviet joke involves a man standing in the Moscow train
> station, handing out leaflets to everyone who passes by. Eventually, of
> course, the KGB arrests him—but they discover to their surprise that the
> leaflets are just blank pieces of paper. “What’s the meaning of this?” they
> demand. “What is there to write?” replies the man. “It’s so obvious!”_

Coming from the former Soviet block, this is spot on. It's as if societies and
social norms have inertia and strive for their own preservation, like an
organism. Even at the cost of the individuals (people) who comprise them. In
the extreme case, social norms can go against the interest of _all_
individuals and still prevail, as the article points out. How weird!

Or not weird? I guess humans themselves are just such conglomerate of
trillions of "individuals" (cells). We can do shit that hurts all of them, and
they'll still comply. It's just weird to think of societies as "doing their
own thing", because we're so grounded in our human-level perspective.

------
js8
Yes, they can be both popular and silenced.

Steven Pinker mentions in the Better Angels of Our Nature (and possibly also
elsewhere) that a group of people (even relatively small one) can be in a
situation where everybody disagrees with some policy, yet everybody follows
it, because they believe that everybody else agrees with it.

That's why allowing dissent is important, to get out of such tricky
situations.

~~~
simonsarris
Was he referring to the Abilene paradox?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox)

------
21
> These donations can add up. Mr. Rubin said his show makes at least $30,000 a
> month on Patreon. And Mr. Peterson says he pulls in some $80,000 in fan
> donations each month.

It won't be long until the censors find out and start demanding Patreon to no-
platform them.

~~~
mpweiher
They already did.

[https://www.change.org/p/ask-patreon-to-pull-the-plug-on-
pet...](https://www.change.org/p/ask-patreon-to-pull-the-plug-on-peterson)

Didn't go very far.

I dimly remember a direct attempt to get Patreon to pull the plug, but that
could have been somebody else.

~~~
jacobmoe
Ah a change.org petition. The PC left is out of control!

This is a great example of what bugs me about this crowd. They seemlessly move
from actual problematic behavior (like a few famous examples of deplatforming
at a few elite college campuses) to Twitter mobs and not entirely supportive
op-ed pieces, as if it's all of a kind. Every public person gets Twitter
mobbed, but they talk about mean people on Twitter as if it's more evidence
that the entire American left has become deranged.

~~~
guelo
In so many cases, including in this article, they refuse to look at data and
just point to anecdotes on top of anecdotes to pretend they're uniquely
aggrieved.

~~~
Presquare
What data are you referring to?

~~~
jacobmoe
You could easily come up with data that might be interesting to look at when
discussing this question:

\- are college liberals more or less likely to answer survey questions
supportive of free speech than they were in the past

\- has the annual rate of incidents of college activist excesses (such as
violence over unwelcome speech) been increasing over time, or has the media
environment just made it seem that way?

\- are liberals more or less likely to support free speech than conservatives?

and so on. All we hear about is the same few anecdotes over and over again.
Don't get me wrong, if there has been backsliding on support for free speech
on the left than it's something I think we should be concerned about. I'm just
not convinced that the panic we're seeing is justified. Certainly not when you
compare this problem to the other problems we're currently facing as a
society.

edit: formatting

edit: ironic that I've found no other topic on the internet where people are
more likely to downvote you without engaging in reasoned debate than on the
question of whether _other people_ are willing enough to engage in reasoned
debate.

~~~
mpweiher
> You could easily come up with data

Yes, you could. And it's been done:

 _The Skeptics are Wrong Part 1-3: Attitudes About Free Speech On Campus are
Changing_

[https://heterodoxacademy.org/skeptics-are-wrong-about-
campus...](https://heterodoxacademy.org/skeptics-are-wrong-about-campus-
speech/)

[https://heterodoxacademy.org/the-skeptics-are-wrong-
part-2/](https://heterodoxacademy.org/the-skeptics-are-wrong-part-2/)

[https://heterodoxacademy.org/the-skeptics-are-wrong-
part-3-i...](https://heterodoxacademy.org/the-skeptics-are-wrong-
part-3-intolerance-levels-are-high/)

You're welcome! :-)

~~~
jacobmoe
Thanks, I'll look at this, though I would advise retaining some skepticism
when evaluating data from a single source, especially when that data is
confirmatory of that source's stated mission. Here's some more to evaluate:

[http://jmrphy.net/blog/2018/02/16/who-is-afraid-of-free-
spee...](http://jmrphy.net/blog/2018/02/16/who-is-afraid-of-free-speech/)

~~~
mpweiher
You might want to consider that the stated mission was a product of the data,
particularly in the case of the _heterodox academy_.

Not everything is a partisan slugfest.

------
coldtea
> _But shutting up is of course is the exact opposite of what the people
> involved are doing – as the Times points out, several IDW members have
> audiences in the millions, monthly Patreon revenue in the five to six
> figures, and (with a big enough security detail) regular college speaking
> engagements._

That's beside the point though, as I don't think the complain/claim is that
they are silenced from everywhere and have no audience.

Rather it is that while their opinions are popular, they are still
unrepresented and silenced in the mainstream media -- including the Times
itself.

~~~
soundwave106
Is there really such a thing as "mainstream" anymore? What I think the
Internet has done is allowed many, many microcosms to exist -- and exist in
ways that are often unknown to the vast majority, even if they are extremely
big in their own sphere.

In music, I have heard "who?" reactions from folks reacting to news about
artists as well known as Avicii and One Direction. And it's true: if you don't
follow _any_ of the worlds they represent (stadium-style EDM and teen pop),
you wouldn't have a clue who they are.

This, I feel, is more of how entertainment choice has expanded so rapidly. You
are no longer limited to three channels of TV and a handful of radio programs.
People thus gravitate to more specific niches that suite them. Therefore, you
can both be enormously popular in your own niche and be quite unknown outside
of it.

I would argue that the "true mainstream media" of the Internet has nothing to
do with politics at all (eg, it's funny memes, cute pics, music and other
general entertainment, etc.), and even within this mainstream, there's a lot
of microdivisions. So is it surprising that specific right-wing political
commentary is just another niche? (Political commentary as a whole is a
niche.)

That's not really non-representation and silencing. It's more like we live in
a world of niches, and increasingly you don't hear much of the niches beyond
your sphere, because there's already an overwhelming amount of material in the
niches you like already.

~~~
coldtea
> _Is there really such a thing as "mainstream" anymore?_

Yes.

> _In music, I have heard "who?" reactions from folks reacting to news about
> artists as well known as Avicii and One Direction._

That's because music in general is not as important in pop culture anymore (we
now have games, apps, social media, netflix, and so on to pass time as well --
before it was either music/radio or some (limited in number) tv channels for
everyday entertainment).

In any case, Avicii and One Direction will make it into most people's news
(e.g. everybody show some piece about the death of Avicci, even if they don't
know who he was), because everybody in the end will see one or all of these
5-10 news sources. And of course everybody knows others, like Kanye, even if
they don't follow hip-hop news sources.

But much much fewer would hear news about this or that obscure artist, say
Marc Ribot, or Phil Elverum.

The names you mentioned (and others, from Kanye to U2) are all over mainstream
media, the others are mentioned only/mostly on specialist or fringe outlets
and media.

------
roenxi
It takes a bit of reading to get there, but the article resolves in the
affirmative; yes things can be both popular and silenced. The absurdist
scenario to show how at the end rather catches my fancy.

That little gem captures quite a complicated interaction about how society
orders itself: that the enforcement of conformity shouldn't be so strong that
opposition cannot form against it.

I suppose the flip side of this is that political groups have a responsibility
to self-regulate their own more extreme elements so that external action is
clearly not needed. It'd be lovely to see more of that on the left and right
of politics.

~~~
BlackFly
I like the distinction between silencing and censorship, since it just lets
you focus on the reality of the situation instead of focusing on the legal
meaning.

Instead of "I don't care for what you are saying but I will fight to death for
your right to say it," you really do have a lot of people behaving in the
manner of "I don't care for what you are saying and I will go out of my way to
stop you from saying it," while they may be legally consistent, they don't
seem to be consistent in ideal.

------
wffurr
> the people at Vox (highly-polished, Ivy-League-educated mutants grown in
> vats by a DARPA project to engineer the perfect thinkpiece writer)

He left out "neoliberal corporate sponsored" but that really hits the nail on
the head.

~~~
croon
Either I'm unsure what you're trying to say, or I believe you misunderstood
what he was saying.

------
rwbhn
Favorite quote: "Really, what sort of moron wastes their time suppressing a
leaderless movement that nobody believes in or cares about?"

------
Nokinside
As someone who reads and listen these people who are called "the intellectual
dark web" I would not call them a group of intellectuals. Haidt and Pinker
being exceptions.

I like to listen Sam Harris and have read a little Mr. Peterson and even
listen Joe Rogan who gets into the list somehow. If I criticize these guys it
does not mean that I think their net contribution is net negative.

Sam Harris is smart and nice to listen and read, but he identifies with his
opinions very strongly. He has very clear tendency to "shut down
intellectually" when challenged. His inability to see the other point of view
cripples him. I have listened enough of his podcasts to realize the moment
when he turns defensive. The rest of the podcast is just him repeating his
point of view in different ways until the quest leaves it to be. He goes from
rational to rationalizing (as in psychological defense) very fast and loses
the ability to listen. Harris was always the weakest link among the "Four
Horsemen". Dennet & Dawkins were the intellectuals, Hitchens was incredible
writer and attack dog. Harris was just edgelord even then.

I really appreciate what Jordan Peterson is doing. He actually concentrates on
the positive for a group of people who are fed confrontation and anger. But
his approach is motivational/charismatic, not scientific or highly
intellectual even if he has the credentials. That's not a bad thing if he can
reach people.

Joe Rogan is the purest case of "manly bullshit". Why he gets mentions is a
mystery. It's entertaining if you like the entertainment value. He is smart
version of Alex Jones without negativity or ill intent. I think his net
positive effect comes from attracting people who fall into every conspiracy
theory away from the negative emotions.

Conclusion: Opinionated or charismatic is not intellectual and critical
thinking involves emotional control and checking your attitude. Intellectually
these guys are punching below their weight class. As a group they are not
challenging intellectually. They provide identification service.

~~~
cristianpascu
If they discuss ideas, they are intellectuals. A group, if there's a common
idea that unites them, at least for now.

I think it's telling the fact that atheists and religious intellectuals are
coming together for something.

~~~
Nokinside
You are correct. I made an error for implying that they are not intellectuals.

They are lightweight intellectuals. Ideologues and pundits mostly.

------
montrose
The word for the phenomenon he describes is "heresy." For example large
numbers of fairly influential people in European history disagreed with
official church doctrine, but had to keep quiet or risk persecution of various
types.

E.g. Newton had qualms about the Trinity, but he could not talk openly about
them, or he would have lost his fellowship at Oxford. (Ironically, he was a
fellow Trinity College.)

~~~
oicie0uD
FTA:

 _The thing that’s new and exciting enough to get New York Times articles
written about it is that the anti-PC movement has spread to friendly coastal
liberals. From the Democrats’ perspective, the IDW aren’t infidels, they’re
heretics._

------
DanielBMarkham
Some observations from somebody who both writes internet software and has been
a member of HN since almost the beginning.

1\. With a large enough audience, somebody will get upset about something.
Sometimes I am wrong. Sometimes I made my point poorly. Sometimes they just
don't get it. Sometimes they've just had a bad day and whatever my point,
they're not going to like it. Sometimes? Sometimes they feign having their
feelings hurt as a way to control conversation. With a large enough audience,
you get all of that. Tons of it. You can't say anything to a large enough
crowd without in some way it being wrong for some consumers.

2\. Every minority group will tell you how oppressed they are. Whether it's
greybeard COBOL programmers or hipsters grooving on whatever the other cool
kids are, they are all misunderstood, put down, and oppressed. It's a mantra.
(That doesn't mean that it's not true. It means that you're going to hear it
whether it's true or not)

3\. The interests of providing a public forum and the interests of society to
hear minority opinions and evolve are in conflict. They always have been. The
minute the first city built the first city park there was some kind of Nazi-
like group wanting to demonstrate there. Such is the nature of public spaces.
(Long discussion here about bullshit internet sites pretending to be bulletin-
boards when in fact they're publishers and seek to shape and control what
appears on their sites)

4\. Sharp contrast, conflict, and passion is what drives clicks. PG once said
that he wished more folks would publish stuff about Erlang innards and less
political/emotional stuff. It was a great sentiment. The problem is that
nobody clicks on those stories or upvotes them. But if I run a school for
earthworm jugglers, and a link comes up titled "Earthworm schools under attack
again!" I'm going to vote that up before I even click on the link.

What does that mean? For internet sites with any volume at all, owners focus
on making the fewest people possible upset. Over time this always ends up with
a site full of people who look, feel, and act just like the owners do. Good
for the site, good for the readers (perhaps), terrible for society. No bad
guys, evil plots, bigotry, or malice required. It's just a natural result of
the system.

So yes, you can be both popular and silenced. The mob always find a way to
shut out what it doesn't want to hear. That's why open access and free speech
for everybody to everybody is so important.

------
silveroriole
I think the ludicrousness that people really MEAN to point out is not that
they have viewership yet claim to be silenced - it’s that the views of these
people are often exactly that of the mainstream, yet they claim to be
silenced. For example, Peterson explicitly represents ‘common sense’ and a
return to the supposedly natural values we’re all familiar with. And the
(obviously somewhat generalised, here) views that monogamy is good, LGBT is
bad, women should be homemakers and men are good at tech, political
correctness has gone mad, and (in the case of Sam Harris) bombing the Middle
East might be a good idea, aren’t exactly radical viewpoints, so claiming
they’re being silenced is laughable.

Their opinions are not really taboo, and are popular (especially with the more
powerful groups in society) precisely because of it. The comparisons in this
article to, say, transgender, workers rights, or peace activists therefore
don’t really jibe with me.

~~~
Density
I remember a certain Google employee who lost his job for having those non-
taboo opinions.

~~~
silveroriole
Partly for openly and tactlessly disagreeing with company hiring policies!
Still, he found rather widespread dissemination and some amount of support for
his views. Is that silencing? And can “women are naturally uninterested
in/poorer at science” really, over the recent course of human history, be
regarded as NOT a common or mainstream opinion? I remember a Feynman quote
where he was amazed that women could understand graphs in sewing patterns!

~~~
sanxiyn
Eh, being fired seems to constitute silencing, at least to me.

------
guelo
It's ridiculous because they are incredibly powerful, have won the debate, and
continue winning. I mean, social justice is now considered a bad thing. Your
evil has won, congratulations.

~~~
lr4444lr
Social justice has been a "bad thing" for a few hundred years now. That's why
our courts try every case on its individual merits, and sentencing is taken
under consideration of the convicted's own past record. We no longer have a
justice system wherein certain classes of citizens are _de iure_ above the law
by virtue of their class membership. That abhorrent idea has been willfully
confused by many loudmouths who might otherwise have a few good points about
systemic social _problems_ into seeking a flat-out unacceptable violation of
core principles of equal treatment under the law.

~~~
guelo
You speak as if the law is always neutral and just.

