> He’s a bigoted right-wing conservative who doesn’t want to hear about interesting scientific developments that he views as benefiting people with lifestyles that he condemns.
Perhaps not here, but I think this is a view worth discussing. I'm moderately conservative, and some of that comment's criticism resonates with my own thoughts.
With cases like HIV/AIDS, I find myself pulled between several competing virtues:
One one side there's mercy and compassion; I'd like to minimize the suffering of hurting people. Even if someone is in dire straights because of actions that I view as unwise (extramarital sex, recreational drug use, etc.), I still want to want what's best for that person.
On the other side, there's justice. I live in a society where everyone pays, to some degree, for individuals' unwise behavior. E.g., Medicare/Medicaid for smokers' lung cancer or HIV treatment for persons who chose to indulge in risky behavior. I'm not okay with forcing the community at large to cover the costs of (what I view as) individuals' selfish actions.
I don't know what the right balance to this is. More generally, I'm not sure if there are any good principles for finding the right tradeoff between two virtues. I wish I knew. I want to do good, but the path is often obscure.
You can flip peoples' tribal affiliations on this topic by changing the disease to COVID. Do red-state antimaskers deserve treatment? Should responsible Americans pay for their reckless lifestyle?
> You can flip peoples' tribal affiliations on this topic by changing the disease to COVID. Do red-state antimaskers deserve treatment? Should responsible Americans pay for their reckless lifestyle?
Personally, I'm not sure. As I said above, I'm conflicted on the issue.
Regarding anti-maskers, I think it depends on the particular reason a person is anti-mask.
I'm working on the assumption that a lifelong smoker or someone who intentionally eschews safe-sex practices is generally aware of the risk they're courting. In my mind, this is "privatization of reward, socialization of risk" is similar to what we on HN often complain about regarding corporate bailouts.
In contrast, I could believe that at least some anti-maskers are genuinely misinformed about the risk posted by their behavior. I have less trouble feeling empathy for someone who's working from wrong beliefs, than someone who's knowingly being selfish.
You must be thinking about this in a weird way if you describe as selfish those people who have unsafe sex and contract HIV and who were fully aware of the risk. What do you think that they hoped to gain by becoming HIV positive? And if they thought it was an acceptable trade-in for some momentary pleasure, can they really have been fully informed in the first place? It seems that what you’re saying here is rooted in some kind of stereotype of crazy hedonism, rather than a more realistic understanding of the psychology of unsafe sex.
Believe me, there are idiots in all walks of life. There are plenty of people who are simply too dumb to practice safe sex, just as there are plenty of people too dumb to take trivial precautions against spreading COVID. I don’t think you’ll have much luck trying to formulate a coherent reason to regard the two groups in a fundamentally different light. Conservatives just have a bee in their collective bonnet about sex as compared to other comparably risky activities.
For some reason, any time there is any good news relating to HIV on HN, we have to have a thread where we seriously moot the question of whether HIV positive people deserve to die (or to put it in your bloodless terms, whether mercy is outweighed by justice). Have you considered just giving this a rest? Everyone already knows that many religious conservatives are in favor of denying treatment to HIV positive people belonging to social groups that they don’t like.
> Everyone already knows that many religious conservatives are in favor of denying treatment to HIV positive people belonging to social groups that they don’t like.
I'm sure there's malice, but I also get it. It's like --
Sometimes idiot hikers will set out into a wilderness with absolutely zero preparation, end up stranded in a life-threatening situation, and need to be helicoptered out of their plight for something like a million dollars of somebody else's money -- let's say the Park Service's.
No, I don't think they should be left to freeze to death, but if I'm funding the Park Service I have a right to be annoyed with them, especially if this isn't a one-off thing, but rather something that keeps happening.
In a world where antivirals cost a bajillion dollars, HIV can seem similar. "Get out of my risk pool."
But even from that perspective, this HIV vaccine is great. Give people the vaccine and now you aren't stuck paying for a lifelong prescription for Truvada or whatever else. Again, win-win.
Personally, when these vaccines get the kinks worked out, I will absolutely get them, even though I have zero intention of being at or of putting anyone at risk.
> It seems that what you’re saying here is rooted in some kind of stereotype of crazy hedonism, rather than a more realistic understanding of the psychology of unsafe sex.
If you delve into what has been written by radicals, you find all kinds of crazy shit, including the belief that STDs should be celebrated as a badge of courage. People as now-mainstream as Focault knowingly had unprotected sex, while HIV-positive, with anonymous men, wrapped it up (heh) in philosophical language, and sold it on to credulous academics. And there are other, slightly more fringe, characters whose names I forget; one guy I remember arguing that it was his political duty to "pos" people. To my ears this is batshit insanity and barely-disguised evil. Yet, though I know this thinking is not actually representative, it is often enough loudly defended (by trollish morons with no intention of living those values) for no reason other than that it's from "one of us". Conservatives are clearly reacting to that, in the age-old tradition of seeking out the worst crazy "the left" can provide.
> No, I don't think they should be left to freeze to death
Of course you don’t. But the OP would see this as a tricky ethical dilemma about balancing ‘mercy’ and ‘justice’. Or at least they should, if they’re not just selectively targeting groups of people that they don’t like.
> If you delve into what has been written by radicals, you find all kinds of crazy shit
You could say this about any group of people. No-one on this thread has defended any of these ‘radical’ ideas, and people have unprotected sex because they’re horny, not because Focault (who 99% of them have never heard of) told them to. So why are you even bringing any of this stuff up? It’s just muddying the waters.
> Yet, though I know this thinking is not actually representative, it is often enough loudly defended
No, deliberately giving people STDs is not an action that’s often loudly defended.
> No, deliberately giving people STDs is not an action that’s often loudly defended.
The action is not loudly defended, but the philosophy is. It's like when people from another part of the political landscape recommend "Industrial Society and its Future" but demur about the letter bombs.
> So why are you even bringing any of this stuff up? It’s just muddying the waters.
I was trying to explain the reaction. But, yeah, it's a waste of time. So here I stop.
There's an easy way to resolve that conflict that ought to appeal to religious conservatives: charity. If you donate to charities that help pay for people's HIV treatment, then no-one is being forced to pay and yet no-one is suffering unnecessarily either.
Oddly enough, despite being so deeply concerned with mercy and justice, religious conservatives do not appear to be among the leading donors to HIV-related charities.
That said, I don't see any kind of ethical dilemma here at all. It would clearly be a moral obscenity to systematically allow people to die of treatable diseases because they can't afford treatment. And if it's a question of 'blame' or 'risky behavior', then we should be refusing treatment to anyone who's ever eaten a donut.
> If you donate to charities that help pay for people's HIV treatment, then no-one is being forced to pay
If I feel you brought something on yourself why would I help you and not an innocent victim? And how would charity help resolve the issue of you dumping the cost on others, it would just be me instead of all of us, but still subsidizing.
> It would clearly be a moral obscenity to systematically allow people to die of treatable diseases because they can't afford treatment.
No, only if that money couldn't do greater good elsewhere.
> And if it's a question of 'blame' or 'risky behavior', then we should be refusing treatment to anyone who's ever eaten a donut.
In some proportion to the number of donuts, yes. Of course. Or at least they should go to the back of the line after we've helped people who didn't self-inflict.
I’m trying to look at this form the perspective of a religious conservative (presumably Christian, though I don’t know). “Only help others if you think they deserve it” is rather obviously not a precept that’s the basis of Christian charity. That is in fact why the OP says (quite despicably, in my view) that there is a conflict between justice and mercy in this case.
> how would charity help resolve the issue of you dumping the cost on others
OP objected to others being forced to pay. Charity is voluntary.
> Or at least they should go to the back of the line
What would this even mean in the case of the US. About 35% of adults are obese, and in almost all instances that’s due to their behavioral choices. Do we send a third of the population “to the back of the line”, or refuse to pay for their medical treatment?
I made my original post as an invitation to discuss my current views (which I admitted weren't settled). I was hoping to find any faults in my views' logic so I could replace them with something more logically consistent and, hopefully, loving.
The fact that you call my initial exposition "despicable" reminds me that HN isn't a good forum for this kind of discussion.
I regret posting a comment that elicited this kind of discussion.
Do you know of any first world countries where people are denied treatment for HIV depending on some assessment of whether or not it’s their fault that they’ve contracted it? E.g. we’ll pay for treatment if you get it from a blood transfusion but not if you get it sexually.
The proposal that you’re hinting at is very far outside the mainstream. I don’t think you’re likely to find any forum (that you’d want to be a part of) where it doesn’t elicit a strong negative reaction.
HN is probably one of few places that tolerates this kind of extremism enough to at least engage with your argument (such as it is) rather than just telling you to get stuffed.
> “Only help others if you think they deserve it” is rather obviously not a precept that’s the basis of Christian charity.
No, only help people if they didn't bring it on themselves and would probably be able to receive the help. There's no sense wasting a bunch of help on a junkie who won't use it, but once he's off the smack and willing to receive help then maybe. But only if a needy mother's kids don't need it more.
> Charity is voluntary.
Right, but you present it as an obligation. These people aren't being funded so you could just do it yourselves.
> About 35% of adults are obese, and in almost all instances that’s due to their behavioral choices. Do we send a third of the population “to the back of the line”, or refuse to pay for their medical treatment?
Oh boy, you're gonna hate this. Yes. And we already do. Try asking for an organ while you're a smoker. They give that sucker to someone who can use it and will take care of it.
What misguided sense of honor could force you to dispense treatment in the order people arrived in versus their need/ability to receive?
>No, only help people if they didn't bring it on themselves and would probably be able to receive the help.
You're suggesting that this is what Christianity has to say on the subject of charity?
>Right, but you present [charity] as an obligation.
No, I didn't. I pointed out that voluntary charitable contributions would be a good way to resolve the tension that the OP feels between 'justice' and 'mercy'.
>Oh boy, you're gonna hate this. Yes. And we already do.
In the case of organs there's an inherently limited supply, since people have to donate voluntarily and all sorts of other conditions have to be met. It's not as if we're throwing away livers rather than give them to alcoholics.
I'm sure you must be aware that we do treat all kinds of obesity-related conditions – and at great expense. In the case of HIV treatment, it's largely just a question of paying for drugs which can easily be manufactured in the required quantity.
But I guess at this point I'm wondering what your actual position is. Are you in favor of conditionally refusing treatment to HIV patients depending on the manner in which they contracted the virus? If so, why not just come out and say it? And if not, what exactly are you getting at?
> In the case of organs there's an inherently limited supply, since people have to donate voluntarily and all sorts of other conditions have to be met.
Yes, and charity spending on one person necessarily takes away from spending on another too. To support someone whose choice of behavior impacted them means you can't support someone who was injured entirely through 'acts of god'.
> It's not as if we're throwing away livers rather than give them to alcoholics.
No, but but they do go to the back of the line. Especially if they still drink.
> I'm sure you must be aware that we do treat all kinds of obesity-related conditions – and at great expense.
Sure. But thankfully we prioritize them to below children with heart defects, and non-obese adults with the same conditions.
> Are you in favor of conditionally refusing treatment to HIV patients depending on the manner in which they contracted the virus?
No more than I am for prioritizing treatment downward for everyone whose injuries were self-inflicted. That's only fair for the people whose were not.
I don't think you've really answered the last question. At the moment, in the US, how you contracted HIV makes no difference to your access to treatment. Do you think this should change or not?
As to the rest, you're obviously aware that in general, obese adults are not deprioritized for treatment as compared to non-obese adults.
> I don't think you've really answered the last question
That's pretty much a textbook example of sealioning. Why are you so anxious?
> HIV
Are they asking for charity? If not then their circumstances shouldn't be relevant, just their ability to pay.
> you're obviously aware that in general, obese adults are not deprioritized for treatment as compared to non-obese adults.
They are. If you're up for a contested treatment (a rare organ, a diagnostic machine that's always in use) you're given a score that represents your health and ability to benefit. Obesity isn't a total black mark but it absolutely is considered. However, we don't consider why you're fat, fat is just a health risk and we recognize that and don't waste effort where it won't be rewarded.
It seems you agree, then, that there is no ethical dilemma in insurers paying for HIV treatment regardless of whether the patient acted irresponsibly. But it would be easier to understand your answer if you’d just say whether or not you think that access to HIV treatment in the US should be more restrictive than it is at present.
We already covered the special case of contested treatments. It’s obviously irrelevant here as we are just talking about access to drugs for HIV patients, not access to an inherently limited resource. Either you pay for Truvda or you don’t. There’s no queue.
Similarly, if you are obese, no generally available treatment that could be of medical benefit to you will be denied merely because it’s expensive and you’re obese.
> Similarly, if you are obese, no generally available treatment that could be of medical benefit to you will be denied merely because it’s expensive and you’re obese.
Nope. There's a limit to everyone's insurance, beyond which they will not pay for more treatment. You won't get told that you're too fat but your treatments will cost more and consequently you'll get less of them. Your insurance contract is for a sum of money, not a specific set of life-saving actions.
But generally that limit is much higher than what you've paid so your expensive treatments take money from the pool.
> there is no ethical dilemma in insurers paying for HIV treatment regardless of whether the patient acted irresponsibly.
As long as their fees cover the payments. But if they're costing more than they're paying as a class, meaning that all other users are compensating them, then yes - dilemma.
> It’s obviously irrelevant here as we are just talking about access to drugs for HIV patients, not access to an inherently limited resource. Either you pay for Truvda or you don’t. There’s no queue.
Paying out of your own pocket, 100% fine regardless.
Just in case it adds clarification. I think the downvotes are due to equating HIV to justice. Smoking once it is well understood I guess kinda is, but HIV is really just a matter of luck like all infectious diseases. You can reduce your risk (eg masks for stopping flu or COVID), but to call it “justice” feels very callous to me.
Thanks for that. It sounds like I did a terrible job of expressing my thoughts.
Perhaps one of my mistakes was using HIV as an example. If someone only skimmed my post, they may have pattern-matched on the whole "AIDS is punishment from God" trope, which is 100% not what I was trying to say.
"religious conservatives do not appear to be among the leading donors to HIV-related charities."
Cite your sources please, because I've seen the opposite in my (limited) charity dealings.
Wow, this is the worst misinterpretation of conservatism I've seen... (let's say 'today')
Sex isn't wrong. It just so happens that it can lead to HIV infection. If you wish people get infected, you've created a moral loop that just punishes people because you enjoy watching people suffer. Congratulations, maybe you do have a handle of conservatism-as-practiced, after all.
It'd make just as much sense to threaten to kill anyone found in public without a blue towel: you'd get the satisfaction of righteousness indignation and the honour of killing lots of people for completely arbitrary reasons.
Funny coincidence. Around 2000, I worked for a company that coined the term "Norway problem" for a different software problem.
Their product used an MVCC database (I think ObjectStore). One of their customers in Norway had a problem where updates to the database seemed to not show up. IIRC the problem was a bug in this company's software that caused MVCC to show an older version of the database content than expected.
Depending on the processor, it can also be the difference between instructions in a tight loop only needing to be decoded once (because of micro-op caching) vs. decoded each loop iteration.
A common criticism I've seen of him is that he wrote these guidelines, doesn't follow them, and isn't held accountable. I don't follow much of what he says these days, so I wouldn't weigh in on the veracity of all that, but if it's true then the document doesn't carry much weight.
If this page was written in 2018, do you have examples from then until now of him not following these guidelines?
Regardless, these are good guidelines. We're all human and even if RMS doesn't always follow them, that doesn't mean they're not good guidelines anymore.
When the rules apply differently to some members of the community and not others, it's toxic and the community suffers. I'm not saying anything about the quality of the document.
But, isn't RMS currently in the process of being "cancelled" (as the awake kids say). Isn't that some accountability (even if it's not the specific type one would like to see)?
This is the behavior that the open letter is referring to. [0]
My personal opinion is that about 85% of this is overblown, and comes from people not only not assuming good faith when reading RMS' writings, but purposefully looking for anything to nitpick and deem "controversial". That said, his comments regarding Epstein are a bit concerning.
It's not that I like RMS or anything, but I find this crusade to oust him from his own board a bit ridiculous. Clearly, RMS is very very particular about words (more specifically, the names of things) to the point of being obtuse and or insensitive in some cases. This is the guy who argues that one shouldn't use terminology like "pirating" or "content creators" for various reasons.
Did you see where I said that I'm not weighing in on those particulars? That's because I don't consider myself well-informed of the particulars, and I'm trying to address points of genuine curiosity without wading into the minefield. Sorry if that's unsatisfactory
I thought I'd read something about them ceasing production due to the odd brand association, but upon further research it appears that they're still making it, but without Hitachi markings, and distributing through a company called Vibratex.
Came to post this. Pun intended. But honestly it's good for both uses can confirm. Though the new Theragun style tools are a step up for sports therapy.
Yamaha also makes routers for SMBs that has top shares in Japan. It's loved because it's very stable and they provide firmware and support info without contract.
Amazon's proposal may be entirely reasonable. But I could easily imagine that it's part of a very sophisticated strategy on Amazon's part to ultimately undermine a legitimate vote.
I have trouble guessing which approach approach is more desirable in this situation.
But as we see from even comments in this article, the lack of clarity around this is probably enough to chill some potential voters from participating, correctly or otherwise.
I don't think that policy is ridiculous at all. It's mine as well, and IIRC it was Billy Graham's.
It minimizes the chances of (a) false accusations of inappropriate behavior, and (b) adultery.
It makes me a little sad for the limits it imposes on my friendships with women, but I consider the tradeoff very worthwhile.
EDIT: Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting that everyone should adopt my policy. I'm just saying that in my particular life circumstances, and with my particular ranking of concerns/values, it's a tradeoff that I find worthwhile.
If it's a book by Malcolm Gladwell, I can't anti-recommend it enough.
All of the Malcolm Gladwell books I've read have been tripe. Unless he has radically improved his writing and grasp of nuance in the last decade (and published retractions of his earlier books), his books are dangerous anti-knowledge which will make you feel smarter but actually be dumber.
Gladwell takes an obvious, folksy thing, adds a bit of a twist to it, presents several anecdotes as dramatic stories illustrating his point, then slaps on some "science" to make it seem like its true. It's not. He's just making stuff up that sounds plausible but surprising.
Gladwell writes well, and seems believable. That doesn't make him right.
When studying sculpture a tutor talked to me about people making “things that look like art”, which really stuck with me - they made objects that mimicked what they thought art should be like, but had a kind of conceptual hollowness. I think Malcolm Gladwell is similar in that he produces content that has the appearance of science, but once you start digging it doesn’t hold up. A bit like a version of “truthiness”, except that in his case it’s “scienciness”.
"Scientism" is a pretty common term for this. I.e. superficially coating arguments in a veneer of rigor and data, for the sake of riding on the epistemic prestige of empirical science.
Oh right, art elitism as counter example, great. Who gets to define what I see as art? "conceptual hollowness" - that sounds nothing but esoteric to begin with. Reminds me of the (German) "Hurz"... event (https://youtu.be/MJ7jbQJXF68).
I hate posting anything negative but sorry, this was just too much.
Oh and I admit I actually didn't dislike the third of one Gladwell's book I once read, as well as a presentation he gave somewhere about the Norden bombsight. Every single one of the HN haters of him on the other hand remain exceedingly vague and don't really have anything of substance to say, only very over-styled ways to express that they dislike them, or even the man himself.
"Remained exceedingly vague" isn't exactly fair. How much do you expect from a comment on a discussion board? If you want more specifics, ask for them! You're in attack mode here right out the gate.
He has admitted to "mak[ing] trouble" rather than believing everything he writes.[0] He acknowledges that his books are not "ends in themselves."[1] He cherry-picks supporting studies and leaves out their failure to replicate.[2] He throws around scientific terms but uses them incorrectly. [3] He offers ill-considered off-the-cuff "solutions."[3]
One reason HN comments might be "exceedingly vague" is because the specific criticisms have been laid out extensively over the past decade.
Leave aside the art metaphor if that's not to your taste, and perhaps a less metaphorical way of looking at it is that Gladwell is a storyteller, not a scientist. He creates coherent narratives, but they obey the logic of stories, not science. Other people have written detailed criticisms of his scientific writing - if you want to read them they're pretty easy to find. I genuinely think it's worth your time.
I listened to his podcast history of napalm, and found it compelling and interesting (but then I'm not a historian, so perhaps it's Murray Gell-Mann amnesia!) So I have more time for his historical work, partially because history is a kind of storytelling.
Science is not the same as history, and needs to be judged by different metrics. This is where he falls down.
Thank you for making my point. Your comment is as vague and nebulous as you say Gladwell's stories are. Neither does he claim to publish scientific papers, last time I checked those were "popular science" category books like millions of others. I'm not sure what value there is in singling out one guy, or to point out the gigantic discrepancy between a scientific paper and a popular book, especially when it's done worse than the latter and even farther from any rigor.
The vitriol, downvote-happiness and almost zealotry of "commenter movements" like anti-Javascript, or, here anti-Gladwell, to me signals that this is more a self-perpetuating fad driven by group think (trying to fit in and proof one is part of the core). If it was merely fact driven such as mine would be ignored - or not be given cause to exist in the first place. It's not like I care one iota about Gladwell, as I said, I never managed to read more than a small part of one book. What I did notice though and why I even paid any attention at all was the amazing level of effort - coupled with an equally amazing level of vagueness - some people put into this.
If one were to think logically, even if you conclude all of Gladwell's books are really really bad, you would just ignore the whole thing. That call to arms anytime anyone dares mention Gladwell - or Javascript - is scary and as far as I can see far worse than anything Gladwell may ever have written. It reminds me more of high school "cool kids" group dynamics.
Your characterisation of my arguments is not fair. I specifically said I appreciated his historical podcast, so I'm certainly not a zealot. And to remove doubt, I'm not an artist critiquing science from a point of ignorance, I have a scientific background too, indluding a masters in neuroscience. Gladwell's mischaracterisations of science are widely distributed, and I think that's why he comes up so often - if he was a relatively unknown blogger nobody would care. It's frustrating to see this kind of scienciness get so much attention when the people who do the science he writes narratives about, and whose work he piggybacks on, are much more circumspect about how widely their work generalises.
Again, I have said there are multiple critiques which go into detail about what is wrong with Gladwell's writing, so if your problem is the "nebulousness" of a comment on Hacker News (which is no place for a detailed critiqe), then I suggest you look for them if you're genuinely interested in why people have a low opinion of his science writing.
Sorry to have scared you. I don't think pointing out the scientific illiteracy and anti-knowledge in his books is far worse than the books themselves, but YMMV.
I commented on a relevant thread in the hope of saving someone else the time wasted reading them, and if I'm honest, because I'm still salty about the money and time he stole from me.
I criticise it in the same wa as if someone was expounding homeopathy or a fruit-baswd diet for cancer, or horoscope-based hiring.
Thank you for supporting my point! You demonstrate the very low level very well. Badly hidden snark akin to personal attacks instead of arguments. Exactly my point about that.. "criticism" of that author, far worse than anything I ever read or heard from him and at least an order of magnitude lower level intellectually, if not more.
Ahh! Thank you for finally articulating what has always bugged me so much about his books. I am reading along thinking, "yeah, yeah, this makes sense" and then realizing later that it actually had no depth.
This is boiler plate Gladwell critique and has been part of his reputation for a long time. Ironically I think we are due for a contrarian shift back to him being brilliant.
One day on a flight I started reading his “Blink” when 1/4th of the way I realized he is full of crap.
The realization came after I started noticing a pattern: that he would give an anecdote, or present a situation, explain it a little bit then bam! He would generalize his conclusion to a broader situation. Rinse and repeat.
What a load of junk!
I got introduced to him via his TED talks which I liked. But after reading Blink (1/4th of it), I opened by eyes and stayed away from whatever he said or did.
Good counterarguments, thank you. Some caution should be exercised when reading pop sci-like books.
The parts of the book that were meaningful to me were the summaries of other foundational studies and generalized beliefs based on lots of research. His conclusions were sometimes a bit of a stretch, but I accept a little 'dressing up' of results with additional opinion as part of writing to a broad audience
Oh God, thank you for saying this. I cannot read two pages of Malcolm Gladwell and cannot fathom his popularity. Generalizing from anecdotes in an entertaining way: that’s his whole schtick.
Or, maybe I’m an old cranky curmudgeon and should let people enjoy reading his junk science.
I've only read Outliers and David and Goliath, but I really enjoyed them and feel that they provided some tangible benefits in how I think about things.
Could you share some of the criticism against him so I could update any incorrect beliefs I may have?
My opinion flipped the other direction. Which totally surprised me.
I used to dismiss Gladwell's "insight porn" (h/t lordnacho). But now I feel like he's a pretty effective advocate, popularizer of views and policies that I agree with. Briefly, he's punching up.
Michael Lewis was the catalyst to reassessing Gladwell. I just frikkin love his Against The Rules podcast series. Briefly, he argues that we do better, both as society and individuals, with referees and coaching.
Then I listened to a handful of Gladwell interviews. A long form chat with Lewis. Book tour stops for Talking with Strangers. I thought: Huh, Gladwell doesn't sound too bad.
So I started listening to other Pushkin Industry podcasts.
I especially love historian Jill Lepore.
So I guess my TLDR is: I reevaluated Gladwell because he's now working with two people I really admire. Virtue by association.
> He’s a bigoted right-wing conservative who doesn’t want to hear about interesting scientific developments that he views as benefiting people with lifestyles that he condemns.
Perhaps not here, but I think this is a view worth discussing. I'm moderately conservative, and some of that comment's criticism resonates with my own thoughts.
With cases like HIV/AIDS, I find myself pulled between several competing virtues:
One one side there's mercy and compassion; I'd like to minimize the suffering of hurting people. Even if someone is in dire straights because of actions that I view as unwise (extramarital sex, recreational drug use, etc.), I still want to want what's best for that person.
On the other side, there's justice. I live in a society where everyone pays, to some degree, for individuals' unwise behavior. E.g., Medicare/Medicaid for smokers' lung cancer or HIV treatment for persons who chose to indulge in risky behavior. I'm not okay with forcing the community at large to cover the costs of (what I view as) individuals' selfish actions.
I don't know what the right balance to this is. More generally, I'm not sure if there are any good principles for finding the right tradeoff between two virtues. I wish I knew. I want to do good, but the path is often obscure.