NASA’s Cassini probe is plunging to its death. The nuclear-powered spacecraft has orbited Saturn for 13 years, and sent back hundreds of thousands of images. The photos include close-ups of the gaseous giant, its famous rings, and its enigmatic moons – including Titan, which has its own atmosphere, and icy Enceladus, which has a subsurface ocean that could conceivably harbour microbial life.
It’s time for everyone claiming to support criminal bans on prostitution because they want to protect vulnerable women to choose sides. Are you really concerned about doing what it takes to protect vulnerable women or are you just using that as an excuse to justify your middle class values and your discomfort with the idea of exchanging sex for money?
Time to choose sides since it looks like research based on the (unfortunately brief) accidental Rhode Island experiment in decriminalizing indoor prostitution has some interesting results. Decriminalization resulted in a 50% drop in gonorrhea and a 30% drop in reported rapes (which, given the ability for prostitutes to go to the police without fearing prosecution, should have increased if rapes had stayed the same). Importantly, it appears that even women who weren’t in the prostitution industry saw a decrease in incidence of rape. I’d say these results were surprising except they weren’t to those familiar with the field, indeed, that’s why I’m willing to say this seems like a pretty solid result (maybe not the actual number but the direction of the change).
While no one suggests that the lives of most prostitutes (though the high end ones sometimes do well for themselves) are sweetness and light but sex workers who have experienced decriminalization will usually express strong support for the change and the ways it has changed their lives. However, one could still make an intellectually cogent case for decriminalization creating a real net harm, e.g., suggest that even if it makes the lives of sex workers better it makes more people into sex workers. However, if this research stands up, its just no longer even plausible to claim women are better protected in a regime which results in 30% more rapes. No matter how far you stretch the additional harm of increased numbers of sex workers (though often of a different class which isn’t as vulnerable) it doesn’t go that far.
But I’m pretty pessimistic. While I believe the passionate advocates in this area really do care about the victimization of women (though one can care so much that you are unable to let some go to save more) I don’t think that is what drives criminalization of prostitution at all. Rather, it’s just more of the usual human psycho-sexual drama about the threat which ‘virtuous’ women perceive from prostitution dressed up in new language.
The Effects of Decriminalization in Rhode Island
The study itself was a standard difference in differences design. Basically, that means they look at the data on rapes and STDs from both Rhode Island and the rest of the country before the decriminalization and then after the decriminalization. If the difference between Rhode Island and other states changes at the time prostitution is decriminalized then we infer that this difference in differences is a result of the change in legal status at that time. Of course, the actual statistical work is a bit more complex than this and uses data over a number of years but it’s a decent way to estimate the effect in a natural experiment provided one doesn’t believe that some other change singled out Rhode Island at the same time. To further shore up their work they use synthetic controls (basically they find the states which resemble Rhode Island in terms of the pre-decriminalization data and then use those as a control instead of the rest of the US).
Unfortunately, a reason why this study itself is only fairly persuasive and not highly persuasive is that the recriminalization results were not as strong. While rapes did rise again after Rhode Island made prostitution illegal again this result had a p-value of only .2. The story the authors offer is that the fact that this change was widely anticipated might dull the statistical power of the difference-in-differences method. In other words, they are suggesting that maybe the rapes started rising again once everyone realized they were going back to criminalization. I don’t find this very plausible since most mechanisms for this effect I can imagine, particularly including the author’s suggestion that rape is a partial substitute for paid sex, shouldn’t see much change, if any, until prostitution is actually recriminalized.
However, I think this result actually fits very nicely into a different model. In particular, while it may be the case that rape and consensual sexual encounters are partial substitutes I’m pretty skeptical that accounts for the effects here. Its not as if prostitution doesn’t exist when it is illegal or someone willing to rape for sex wouldn’t avail themselves of it. Rather, I suspect there are more general network effects at play here. In the pre-decriminalization world you have a system that relies on a system of pimps, organized crime and other bad actors to operate in which the girls involved may have little control/ownership interests and probably have only a minimal support network among themselves. Decriminalization not only removes this criminal element from the scene it also, as suggested by the health data, draws in a new class of prostitute who has better resources, planning, risk mitigation and isn’t at the mercy of her drug dealing pimp, i.e., more middle class prostitution. Recriminalization appears to have push some people out of the industry but it doesn’t change the fact that the criminal element is no longer present. A prostitute with a regular list of clients, a system for meeting new clients online and who isn’t already enmeshed with the criminal element has little need to return to their clutches even after recriminalization meaning the benefits linger. Sadly, I would guess that in the long term we will see a regression to previous levels as the police work to disrupt the organization and continuing business relationships these women have used to replace pimps and organized crime and eventually people will go back to securing prostitution through this element and rapes will rise.
Luckily, one doesn’t need to believe my analysis (which is just speculation) since one can rely on the fact that the results found for decriminalization are similar to what other studies have found.
The Story Of Decriminalization
The story of how Rhode Island came to decriminalize prostitution is pretty neat so I advise you to read this article. I am not, however, please with the top billing they gave people who in my opinion were nothing but moralizing middle aged women who had never had to make really hard choices using the language of concern for vulnerable women to justify their disapproval.
Around the world, there’s a growing movement to decriminalize sex work. Last year, Amnesty International, the largest human rights group in the world, came out with a recommendation that governments should decriminalize consensual sex work and develop laws that ensure workers are “protected from harm, exploitation and coercion.”
In the past I’ve written at length about my concern that the newly invigorated attitude that we must outlaw, or at least severely socially punish the speakers, racist/sexist/etc.. speech is a mistake. I have doubts about the efficacy of such punishments and believe that pushing racism adjacent views into a hidden underground where they fester and mutate1 creates more hate. However, the primary thrust of my concern was the usual slippery slope argument (importantly serious harms arise as soon as well-intentioned people start to fear that an epistemic mistake could land them in trouble). Unfortunately, evidence for a steep slippery plastic slope with extra soap arrived all too quickly.
Superiority of Western Culture
First we had this really stupid opinion piece that I would have guessed was written by a machine learning algorithm trained on 1980s era conservative values pieces if it had only mentioned crack (still managed a shout out to the pill for destroying our perfect 1950s society). Personally, I thought it was just as stupid this time around as I did in the late 80s and early 90s except these authors should have seen how that went and known better. However, as far as offensiveness goes it rates as a “kids these days…have no … always on their..” but somehow it has become the subject of accusations of racism and the subject of serious controversy (yes, that last article is written by a friend of the original author so take its slant with a grain of salt).
True, there is no credible effort to have the author fired from her position in the law school but it has generated enough outrage for students to get up in time to picket Wax’s class as racist and its not just some hasty people with signs. At least a non-trivial segment of the Penn campus left is willing to call this piece racist, sexist or otherwise suggest it isn’t just dumb and wrong but deserving of open moral scorn.
While one might try and charitably reconstruct some argument based on the text of the oped2 what is going on is what is always going on with accusations of racism/sexism/islamophobia etc.. Rather than parsing the literal content of a piece and asserting those claims amount to racism (or providing evidence that the author was being disingenuous) people decide to call something racist if it feels like the things racists would say. In this case there is no doubt this oped has that feel. Indeed, it hits many of the points that one would expect from a racist dog-whistle: glorification of European/western culture, suggestion that something associated with whites is superior, a nostalgic comparison to the 1950s, reference to some aspect of black culture the author disapproves of (“anti-“acting white” rap culture of inner-city blacks”) and even the obligatory focus on whites that have the traits you are criticizing.
The problem with taking this as grounds for accusations of racism is that it confuses being the sort of person whose strong affinity for traditionalism and reverence for long lived institutions and practices may make needed reform more difficult with actual racism. However, we are generally quite willing to let the earnest man who is such a strong believer in feminism that he frequently gives a piece of his mind to men who he views as pushing an aggressive male-centric approach on women and thereby does more to perpetuate the stereotype of women as unable to handle these situations than anyone he criticizes. This case is only different in that it is harder to imagine genuinely feeling that these old school conservative values are the secret to a better life and wanting to help minorities by sharing. Also in that often people who feel this way about morals and newfangled social innovations also feel this way about minorities but that’s just a stereotype.
Most importantly, it renders the standard for racism uselessly subjective. If it is no longer necessary to have overt animus or believe in some particular stereotype then it is insanely easy to apply the term to virtually anyone you want. Especially given that as the sphere of things that have been labeled racist expands fewer and fewer non-racists say anything in that sphere so just imagine the same dialog in 20 years about pieces supporting free speech. It would be something mostly racists talk about as a cover, anyone like me writing about it would explain that we believed in it for everyone (while detractors would point out that we kept focusing on the free speech of the racists as they don’t see it from the context in which that is the right place to make one’s stand), one could raise analogies to the contract rights arguments offered in the civil rights movement (yes its bad but the constitution…we just can’t do anything). The only thing this lacks is the subjective feel that comes from hearing lots of racists say something that sounds similar but we can’t cede to racists the power to decide what is and isn’t considered.
Also, as a practical matter this kind of use of the accusation of racism isn’t productive. The reason to use the term at all is to invoke our shared disapprobation of certain behaviors to change people’s behavior. Telling someone ‘suggesting that blacks only eat fried Chicken or look like Gorillas’ is racist usually results in an immediate change and the world is a better place but when you say that some vague thing about the gestalt I get from your article is racist doesn’t. If I were the author and was willing to sell out my views so I wouldn’t be racist how would I even know where to start?
Call these ideas out as stupid or even the kind of progress phobic thinking that perpetuates racism that’s great but its just not racism.
University of Tampa’s Impolitic Twitter Firing
Also, we have the University of Tampa firing a visiting professor for the following poorly considered and bumblinging inappropriate tweet
I dont believe in instant karma but this kinda feels like it for Texas. Hopefully this will help them realize the GOP doesnt care about them.
This is obviously just a case of someone not realizing how what he said would be taken in context. When he did he apologized. That should have been the end of it.
While at first glance one might feel that this isn’t really relevant to the broader picture at the moment. However, while it wasn’t exactly an academic paper this tweet is fundamentally nothing but an expression of a political sentiment. Indeed, suppose the author really believed this was some kind of divine vengeance on Texas for voting GOP. Surely that is core political-religious speech if anything is so its hard to see how this is anything but a direct attack on the idea that Professors get to comment on current events and broader social issues without fear of being fired for controversial views (assuming they don’t bear on their academic qualifications…mathematicians probably shouldn’t say $\omega$ and $2^\omega$ have the same cardinality).
We need room for people to make mistakes! Even mistakes about what to believe on controversial issues because only when people feel they won’t lose their jobs or be shunned if they get it wrong can they allow themselves to explore the issue and reach the right conclusions.
I know its really hard in these discussions to imagine any other perspective than your own but rarely is it the case that someone just wakes up out of the blue filled with hate and the desire to see another race suffer. Sure, sometimes the reasons are just visceral (your gang is white they are black) but in most cases there is some chain of thought and emotion that made every step they took seem reasonable so if you suspect the target of your criticism of simply reasonless hate you should probably reevaluate that view.
However, that is what makes the situation so dangerous as well. Given that even racists think they have good and sound justifications for their beliefs an atmosphere which imposes severe penalties for even minor infractions allows only one safe response: parrot back the official dogma.
But, if we are going to fix the remaining barriers and harms inflicted by problematic stereotypes and structural racism/sexism we need to find them in non-obvious places and that takes open speculation. We’ve picked all the low hanging fruit so more looking for white or male ‘perpetrators’ (if it could have been fixed easily that way we would have) we instead need to look at the less examined reservoirs of stereotypes such as members of the group themselves or the well-intentioned helper3. That means we need to walk on the edge and consider possibly offensive or unpleasant possibilities if we are going to figure out what is really going on so we can do something to fix things.
- I’ve seen any number of scenarios in which the perception that certain topics can’t even be discussed doesn’t erase those ideas from people’s minds. Rather, it pushes them to form groups (the ones that go silent when a woman or minority comes by and we work so hard to eliminate) in which they feel they can comfortably express views they are sympathetic to but are too controversial for general consumption. Unfortunately, when people gather together for the purpose of feeling safe sharing controversial views creates a strong social pressure not to call anyone else’s views in that group out for sexism/racism/etc.. even in a polite friendly way. I’m constantly amazed at how quickly both such groups form and how quickly they descend to the lowest common denominator and serve as a breeding ground where hateful ideas can infect good people because there is no opportunity to apply the corrective of a good counterargument and criticism. ↩
- Taking their complaints at face value would seem to suggest the problem is that suggesting WASP culture (not so named) is superior is racist or at least unacceptable and bad. While those of us immersed in liberal sensibilities naturally flinch a bit when the suggestion is made that one culture is superior to another that doesn’t make the claim wrong or racist. Indeed, we all believe that, at least in the modern context, modern western culture is superior to the violent revenge culture in some New Guinean tribes all things considered (of course cultures have so many traits surely we could cherry pick a few improvements but the original piece doesn’t deny this). Hell, the very idea of tolerance and equality that those on the left are fighting for is a rare value for a culture to have and we are right to identify it as something good and important. But I think this “can’t say one culture is better than another” line isn’t a very charitable interpretation. ↩
- Everyone knows that a great deal of slut-shaming and outfit policing is done to women by women and we’ve learned recently that it is other women who do the majority of interrupting women and may very well be the ones preventing more competitive female involvement. This matches both my experience at caltech (women who had few if any female friends their whole lives were way more likely to just blunder in and shot their load on the conversation or dismiss someone else’s contribution as stupid) and what evolutionary psychology would suggest (men have little interest in policing women but each gender needs to police rivals). Of course, men aren’t on the hook they are just on the hook for something else perpetuating harmful male stereotypes which can harm women as much as they do men (say by men not being willing to become primary caregivers). ↩
As our system of government becomes more complex the importance of independent agencies and the boards that govern them continues to grow. If we define such agencies functionally, rather than legally1, this sweeps in the obviously influential supreme court but in the modern world more and more turns on agencies like the FCC, Federal Reserve, SEC, etc… Indeed, in many ways these independent agencies are more important than congress itself. For a variety of reasons congress simply isn’t equipped to engage in precedent driven rule making requiring substantial expertise and institutional competence, e.g., its hard to imagine congress successfully running the recent broadcast incentive auction or developing a set of rules for whitespace devices much less run the Fed.
However, recent battles over supreme court appointments and the controversial choices of new FCC commissioner Pai to rollback net neutrality rules expose the obvious danger in this system. As the importance of these agencies increases the importance of these appointments to various political interests grows and that turns the appointment and confirmation process into an acrimonious partisan struggle. Now, at first glance one might think that’s fine. After all, if these agencies have so much power over the lives of average Americans isn’t it appropriate for our political disagreements to play out in the appointment process? Unfortunately, especially given limitations imposed by supreme court precedent, this method of choosing the heads of independent agencies is problematic for a number of reasons.
- Political interest in such appointments is usually limited to a few hot button issues which means politicians will favor predictable ideologues.
- The best policies for these agencies are often counterintuitive and not what plays well for voters who lack the time to learn.
- The president is given a disturbing amount of (effectively) legislative power.
- Politicians’ self-interest will push them towards the most vanilla least criticizable candidates rather than the best.
- All too often political conflict leaves us with unfilled positions exacerbating the other problems, particularly 3.
I think we can do a lot better. We need a way to render such appointments responsive, in a long term sense, to the will of the voters but insulated from their immediate interests and preferences. I propose a kind of US house of lords consisting of former senators and representatives who have retired from office (and are barred from ever holding federal elected office again) as well as perhaps former judges and commission members from these independent agencies. Unlike the UK house of lords I wouldn’t let membership determined by votes but be automatic for all former congressmen who wish to join with their voting power proportional to their number of years of service (thus making the votes proportional to congressional representation modulo age/participation gaps). One might imagine multiple ways this could work from the body directly selecting appointees to being responsible for admitting distinguished academics, lawyers, etc.. into various expert bodies which then nominate board members for independent organizations.
Importantly, in the long run this body still reflects the choices of the American voter but, barred as they are from running for future office, their concerns will tend to be more long term and historical in nature. This would be especially true if we mandated secret voting in this ‘house of lords’. The voters will never again evaluate them for public office so why not let them vote secretly?
Of course this would require a constitutional amendment but I still think it’s a neat idea.
- That is an independent agency is a unit of the federal government answerable to a governing body appointed by the president with senatorial consent but whose members can’t be removed without cause. ↩
So apparently in the wake of Charlottesville a campaign has formed to identify and dox the people who marched in support of white nationalism. No way this could end badly!
I’m sure white nationalists and their sympathizers we see spending all day posting on parts of 4chan and reddit have neither the time nor inclination to respond in kind. And if they do I’m sure they’ll restrict themselves to simply publishing the identities of those in antifa movements or anti-racist marches. No way they will expose gay people in the closet living in repressive regimes or name individuals anonymously sharing their experiences of sexual assault/violence. Surely they would never stoop so low as to reveal the identities of women who live in religiously conservative communities or work for conservative religious employers who seek advice about dealing with the emotional aftermath of an abortion.
Also, I’m sure that giving those who might be sympathetic enough to go to a march but not really committed a really good reason to hold a grudge and making sure they can’t hold a normal job will help them see the error of their ways. No way it will turn them into hardened extremists.
And certainly the groups who form to dox these white supremacists will understand that nazis are a special case and, after receiving a bunch of praise, will just pack up rather than going after another group they see as having unacceptable views or if they do it will surely be one you also see as unacceptable.
And, of course, all these vigilantes will exercise great care and verify that every last person they dox is really a white supremacist. No way they will accidentally mistake some passerby or blogger covering the event. I mean this is totally different than the situation will real life crimes like rape or murder where we think vigilantism poses far too great a risk of getting things wrong.
Yup, no reason to worry about this at all. Lets get those nazi bastards.
Personally, I think the proposal to ‘change’ the p-value for significant results from .05 to .005 is a mistake. The only sense in which this proposal has any real bite is if journals and hiring committees respond by treating research that doesn’t meet p < .005 as less important but all that does is make the incentives for the kind of behavior causing all the problems much stronger.
I’d much rather have a well designed (ideally pre-registered) trial at p < .05 than a p < .005 result that is cherry picked as a result of after the fact choice of analysis. Rather than making the distinction between well designed appropriate methodology and dangerous potentially misleading methodology more apparent this further obscures it and tells any scientist who was standing on principle they need to stop hoping their better methodology will be appreciated and do something to compete on p-value with papers published using problematic data analysis.
In particular, I think this kind of proposal doesn’t take sufficient account of the economics and incentives of researchers. Yes, p < .005 studies would be more convincing but they also cost more (both in $ and time) so by telling fledgling researchers they need p < .005 you force them to put all their eggs in one basket making dubious data analysis choices that much more tempting when their study fails to meet the threshold.
What we need is more results blind publication processes (in which journals publish the results based merely on a description of the experimental process without knowledge of what the results found). That would both help combat many of these biases and truly evaluate researchers on their ability not their luck. Ideally such studies would be pre-accepted before results were actually analyzed. Of course there still needs to be a place for merely suggestive work that invites further research but it should be regarded as such without any particular importance assigned to p-value.
However, as these are only my brief immediate thoughts I’m quite open to potential counterarguments.
Why do we put up with this kind of shit (preventing college athletes from even monetizing their own youtube videos)? I mean no one really believes that this is deeply important to preserve some weird value of “amatuerness” in sports do they? Even if you thought that why not let the athletes themselves vote on whether being amatuer is worth the loss of revenue?
If you think they are too young and immature go ask former college athletes to make the call. Of course they won’t because this is all about making money off them.
Sigh, it just pisses me off that we can fight so much about issues of political controversy on campuses but in places where its clear as day that colleges are doing the wrong thing and both the right and left should support fixing somehow gets a pass. Yes this is just a contentless rant but sometimes it happens.
If it really is true, as MIT suggests, that the gender ratio in their department is convincing a substantial percentage of women to enter MechE who otherwise would have avoided a STEM field its a big deal. However, upon reflection there are some aspects that are troubling.
First, as the article suggests, they engage in fairly extensive recruitment and some degree of affirmative action for female students in STEM fields. This calls into question the existence of any such effect as for all we know MIT is just recruiting women interested in MechE away from other schools. Indeed, even just considering the benefit MIT is suggesting (women are more attracted to programs with a reasonable gender balance) one should expect MIT’s efforts here to be worsening the gender balance at other schools like caltech
But if you really believe that gender imbalance both makes life worse for female students and repeals them from the field it seems downright irresponsible to attrach female MechE majors from other schools (without a better understanding of how these effects work). If, as seems quite plausible, the discomfort (and willingness to drop out/not major) is most extreme when the percentage of women is the least (e.g. superlinear as percent goes to 0), then this could be a substantial net harm as the gains from greater gender equality at MIT are more than offset by the decreased gender equality at other schools. It all depends on the specific numbers but its concerning that people seem convinced this is a good thing without even having an intuition about the size and direction of this cross school interaction.
Before anyone applauds these results we really need some good studies checking that MIT’s efforts really are bringing more women into MechE. I hope they are but I fear that they may be doing the exact opposite. If I had to guess I’d bet that any positive effect of gender balance is offset by the fact that MIT is harder/more competitive than the other schools who would otherwise get many of the women MIT recruits and I expect the harder/more competitive a science class the more likely people (of either gender) are to drop out to a less quantitative subject (but that’s just speculation).
Also, I’d like to know what people whether MITs affirmative action efforts create a situation in which men tend to noticeably outperform women. As much as I hated the huge gender ratio at caltech I very much appreciated the fact that they were obviously equals. Now, like everything else, what I appreciated isn’t what matters but it does seem like we should at the very least have a pretty firm grip on what kind of effects on subsequent attitudes affirmative action has before we praise the policy. Even if, this effect doesn’t appear at MIT right now (e.g. they most just steal girls from caltech and cmu) it might if more schools try to implement such a policy.
I find it pretty crazy when MIT is congratulating itself when they don’t seem to have any grip (or at least are hiding it) on what they are trying to achieve or whether their policies achieve it.
Now, of course, most social programs will depend greatly on priors and I’d be happy with a short little explanation about why they think the net benefit of achieving gender balance in their departments is worth the effect it has on other schools. Are they suggesting their policy would and could universalize and benefits would be seen from that? Some words about why would be nice. Also some words about why they have the intuition any blowback is worth the cost. As it is it kinda makes one feel like you are being scammed with a meaningless advertising statistic.
I think its quite possible MIT’s policy is net beneficial but I’ve yet to see any cogent account of why I should think that so if you have one I’d love to hear it.
As an aside I’d add that while I don’t think there is any inherint moral value in making sure men and women are equally represented in every discipline, only in making sure they are equally welcome and have equal access, but I do think there would be substantial societal gains to increasing the number of women in STEM fields. Not only would this make scientists happier (and less socially isolated and less likely to accidentally harass) but merely making it clear that quantitative, systematic thing oriented reasoning isn’t anti-female.
I was reading an interesting and insightful post by theunitofcaring offering a useful perspective on microaggressions and what is going on with them (she identifies them with the actions/statements that create the subtle sense one isn’t welcome in some group). I very much urge everyone to read the whole thing since her point about what microaggressions really are is probably more important than the quibbles/speculation I have to offer here but once you’ve done that I want to call your attention to the following passage in her post:
But I think the actual thing with microaggressions is that feeling of ‘people like me are not welcome’ or at least ‘people like me are only conditionally welcome, welcome if we’re friendly and careful and unthreatening and reassuring and match other peoples’ narratives about us and aren’t angry and don’t make anyone uncomfortable and toe the party line’. It’s really helpful for people to collect and corroborate and discuss and complain about all of the little cues which add up to that impression, but scrupulously memorizing the list of cues and avoiding the things on your list won’t actually make spaces where people feel welcome. The problem is the ‘this space is not for people like you’ thing.
Now I certainly agree that the feeling of being unwelcome is at least part of what is going on with micro-aggressions. I also understand why people want to hash out their experiences and complain about bad treatment. We all do this when we complain to our friends “Can you believe he did blah?” and it serves a useful emotional purpose. However, in face to face interactions our friends will also tend to encourage us not to dwell on it if we keep going on about it to and getting more angry and upset. However, when instead of sharing an experience with a friend we share it with a group that identifies itself with concern about the treatment of some (or many) underprivileged groups or that explicitly exists to share such experiences the dynamic is likely to change. For one, there will be considerable disincentive to tell anyone that they are overreacting or to encourage someone to just let it go and stop thinking about it. After all, the group norms explicitly favor such sharing and other group members are unlikely to be willing to take the flak for discouraging your participation just out of the concern that you are exacerbating your suffering.
While the risk of further exacerbating a hurtful event by focusing too much on it is something that people can decide how to deal with on their own this isn’t the only such risk posed by this kind of sharing. When we encourage this kind of sharing with a (social justice sympathetic) group there is the very real danger that by making these microaggressions so salient and creating lists of behaviors that in some circumstance qualified as unwelcoming makes people who would otherwise not have felt unwelcome conclude that they are.
I mean suppose I’m considering joining the ballroom dance club at my school. If I know nothing about it and go when someone says “Ohh, you’ll need some shoes with a such and such soul” I think ‘Ohh great, thanks’ and don’t feel unwelcome.
In contrast, suppose I’ve read a great deal about how ballroom dance clubs are horribly elitist, populated by rich snobs who think they are better than the rest of us and read detailed accounts by a guy who was treated badly by a ballroom dance club including the way in which they used the fact that he lacked the same 1000 dollar shoes they had to exclude and belittle him. Now, when I get up the courage to go to the club I’m full of trepidation, constantly on the look out for the expected insults based on my middle class background. Normal human communication is filled with little quirkys, misunderstandings, accidental offenses which I would have just passed over in the normal course but now I obsess over them and examine them for evidence I’m unwelcome. Now when I hear the perfectly friendly suggestion that I need shoes with a different kind of soul I don’t just think they are being helpful but instead assume that its a jab at me for not having super expensive shoes.
Note that, even if the salience/likelihood of being unwelcome doesn’t itself incline me to unwarrantedly assume friendly comments are really unwelcoming the mere fact that I’m aware of the way in which certain comments could be a microaggression makes me interpret them as such. After all, I will think (falsely assuming other people share my cultural context and knowledge of microaggressions) that given the charged nature of comments about shoes in the ballroom scene the mere fact that a club member brought my shoes up without showing great sensitivity to its aggressive nature is itself a slight against me. After all, if this group really cared about having people like me as members they would exercise much more care to avoid comments that so obviously risk offense.
I’d like to be clear that I’m not trying to minimize the real suffering that this kind of sense of being unwelcome can create. Indeed, it is precisely the fact that it matters which makes it so important we don’t accidentally increase the incidence of people feeling unwelcome in such a way.
Speculation About Social Justice Acrimony
So far everything I said is relatively obvious. Of course there are reasonable disagreements about the benefits offered by such sharing (which I barely touched on) as well as the risk of these harmful effects. However, I don’t think it should be particularly controversial that there is at least some such risk. What follows is much more speculative and while I think it is true but I could well be wrong (which hopefully someone will point out to me if I am). Also I think it is important to emphasize that I certainly am not trying to lay any blame or make any claims about who is in the right as not only do I not believe in blame/guilt as moral concepts but I think concern with such notions is a substantial contributor to much of the worlds suffering. Thus, the following account should not be understood as an attempt to say anything about whose behavior is or isn’t reasonable but just to hypothesize about what’s happening (which will hopefully guide us in finding ways we can make things better).
I think the kind of dynamic I describe above explains some of (but not all) the multiplying accusations of racism, insensitivity etc.. including in contexts that previously were genuinely not seen as racially/gender/etc.. charged by either side1 as well as the the increasingly militant and angry anti-privilege rhetoric and the equally angry and bitter snowflake accusations from the other side. The cultural bubble that individuals on the progressive left (including those members of underprivileged groups that high socioeconomic status people tend to encounter2) carry with them, especially online, includes extensive focus on emotionally charged stories about slights experienced by members of underprivileged groups at the hands of visible members of privileged groups. Just like nationwide news reporting about crimes creates a false sense of both the danger crime presents and the likelihood that minorities are criminals the continual focus on outrageous treatment of members of underprivileged groups gives rise to an inflated sense of how common such behavior is within the relatively elite social content of these college educated liberals. Continued interaction with a community in which the discriminatory/aggressive nature of certain phrases/subjects/etc.. is taken for granted encourages people to assume that its hurtful/offensive nature is obvious to anyone who considers it. This attitude is reinforced whenever the community comforts members who feel unwelcome at some event by assuring them they are in the right and its those awful men/whites/straights/TERFs who are subjecting you to aggressive attacks. By copying a trick from religion and adopting the explicit view that expressing doubt/skepticism itself betrays the community and allies one with the enemy the brakes that might otherwise keep attitudes from drifting too far from the mainstream are disabled3.
When members of such a community go out into the world they implicitly assume (just as they correctly criticize privileged people for doing) that their experience is representative-ish, i.e., they know its not representative but underestimate the extent to which other people’s experiences vary. As a result of the mechanisms discussed above these individuals genuinely feel unwelcome and see behaviors non-initiates don’t think anything of as a constant stream of aggressions or at least deliberate intolerance but when they do so they aren’t being particularly sensitive or demanding special treatment. They are acting no differently than blacks who justifiably view anyone using the n-word as engaging in racist speech no matter how much they insist they have no animus against blacks. Culture determines that certain behaviors, regardless of intent or motivation, are unacceptable attacks and members of the community in question are simply applying the same rule. Unfortunately, the cultural gap between those with social justice sympathies and unallied white men who they then interact with is far larger than either side intuitively appreciates. Lacking the same culture background those without social justice sympathies don’t even suspect that the phrases/arguments/subjects which get them in trouble are even unusual or controversial. Unfortunately, the resulting interaction only serves to further reinforce the views on both sides. Members of the underprivileged community feel hurt and attacked confirming the narrative they hear from their community while the members of the ‘privileged’ group unsurprisingly are upset when what they see as perfectly friendly behavior is met with anger and accusations of micro-aggressions. Making the same mistake about the representativeness of their experiences as members of the underprivileged community made they infer that all these people whining about microaggressions, privilege etc.. etc.. are either just absurdly sensitive ‘snowflakes’ or deceitful manipulative jerks. Everyone feels extremely justified, righteous and is absolutely certain they are the wronged party.
If this hypothesis is valid and we want to make things better, its absolutely critical that we do something to fix this dynamic. Social media self-selection makes it worse but facebook isn’t going away. Ideally, more contact and interaction between individuals from different backgrounds would be enable mutual understanding and let each side can see where the other is coming from. However, a variety of memetic defenses have made such progress particularly difficult. Social justice allies on the left explicitly reject the idea that they have any responsibility to educate/teach those they see as privileged and morally culpable4 and viewing any attempt to even convey the situation from the perspective of members of ‘privileged’ groups as itself an attack on the legitimacy of their complaints. Similarly, those on the right (or who are pushed that way by this dynamic) see any attempt to convey the situation from the perspective of underprivileged groups as an attempt to use guilt and emotional pressure to silence them and regard the race/gender based terminology that permeates social justice discussions as crossing a line into overt racism and moving beyond the realm of legitimate discourse. Sadly, bad behavior in the past by both sides means that these suspicions aren’t unreasonable and can’t be easily pushed past.
Obviously, the right answer probably isn’t to deny people who are honestly suffering from rejection (especially on account of their race/religion/etc..) a sympathetic hearing but I do suspect there may be things we can do to break apart the useful and beneficial aspects of shared community and support through shared experiences and the outrage feedback loop. In particular, I think we ought to strongly advise people (for their own good and societies) looking for such support and sympathy to find it somewhere other than social media or groups with an over social justice or partisan agenda. Indeed, I strongly suspect the best solution would be if those in need of sympathy/support as a result of micro/macroaggressions were encouraged to receive it from others who share their ethnicity/orientation/race/etc.. but aren’t specifically organized as a social justice cause. The alternate purpose prevents the unfortunate feedback created by focusing on slights and aggression while also providing an audience who can be both appropriately sympathetic and skeptical in turn. Moreover, by encouraging this to happen in groups with some other focus it would hopefully ensure cultural diffusion of the experiences presented, e.g., if women who have been assaulted or treated badly share their experiences with their basketball team or the women in their dorm then those accounts reach both those sympathetic and unsympathetic to social justice concerns rather than creating the two disjoint worlds that cause the problems above. The question is just how to make this happen.
On the other hand, perhaps I’m exaggerating the role that first hand accounts play in this whole process and it is really driven primarily by media accounts of bad behavior. If so then the only recourse is probably to work hard at convincing people that, for all the reasons that normalizing racism/sexism/etc.. is bad and others, by spreading such accounts and further reinforcing fears of mistreatment one is actually perpetuating the very harms one is so upset about. I realize this is a hard sell, no one wants to snub someone standing up and advocating for them, but that’s the best idea I’ve got at the moment.
One reason I’m hopeful that moving such commiseration and bonding away from groups with an explicit liberal or social justice agenda would solve the problem is that I suspect there is another important factor in this whole affair.
Ironically, I think (and I’m sure I’m not the first) much of the dynamic on the left is driven by privileged white liberals who, far all their verbal obeisance to the less privileged, have become both the face and the voice of a movement which is supposedly not about them often by wielding the norms barring skepticism into claims of oppression as a weapon to prevent any inquiry into whether or not lesbian academics with high status jobs and international speaking gigs really should count as underprivileged. Exactly as their own theory predicts, they use institutional power to delegitimize any attempt by those who, despite no belonging to a recognized underprivileged group, nevertheless suffer under socioeconomic conditions far worse than many of the white academics pushing the ideology that cis-hetero-men always count as privileged regardless of personal circumstances. Despite what many on the left assume, most (but certainly not all) people, even those who identify as strongly conservative are quite willing to listen to credible accounts from minorities about what it feels like to grow up poor and black and be marginalized on account of your skin color. They just aren’t willing to be lectured about their privilege or be told that, on account of their race/gender/orientation, their opinion is illegitimate by someone dripping with social status, institutional power and (relative) wealth.
I’m not going to argue at length for this position here but I will make two quick points. First, at least in my anecdotal experience, those social justice advocates which, while quite possibly the victims of some unfairness, haven’t (on the basis of group membership) experienced true need, oppressive violence or threat of imprisionment are the quickest to make accusations, call people names and disengage from well meaning skeptics. In contrast, those who have experienced more serious oppression don’t feel the same need to protect their position by calling attention to their zeal nor find the standard criticisms of the focus on group properties so threatening. After all, it isn’t their status that is threatened if everyone has to stand on their own rather than laying claim to the mistreatment of others who share a property with you. Second, notice that this theory explains the puzzling behavior of social justice advocates in prioritizing ideological purity over good will (if you are genuinely worried about oppression, e.g., a Jew in 1930s Germany, any friend/ally is desirable even if they use words that are disrespectful or are strong critics of your movement) and in antagonizing individuals disagree or criticize but express a genuine willingness to listen to their facts and arguments. It also explains why words like mansplain or whitesplain aren’t, as one might expect, get applied against men or whites who spend the most time discussing matters of social justice, i.e., community members who talk the talk, because they are ultimately a means to block challenges to the power/legitimacy of relatively privileged members of the social justice community not a true concern over whether or not whites or men speak on the subject.
This theory, if true, is a compelling illustration of why it is so bad to roll back legal and traditional rules that protect unpopular groups from prosecution and other penalties despite all the noise about them protecting oppressors. Humans are social creatures with intensely strong drives to gain power, influence and status which can be easily used to subvert groups and institutions supposedly dedicated to helping the worst off and instead using them to maintain their own power.
Note that, I’m not suggesting that those relatively privileged individuals in social justice communities are particularly morally blameworthy. While they may be aware of the danger here in a theoretical sense they honestly believe they are doing good not harm. Moreover, they are merely behaving in the same way that we all do unless we work very hard to catch ourselves doing it and change our behavior: adapting seamlessly to function in the culture you find oneself in and unconsciously learning what it takes to draw praise and guard against criticism. AS someone filled with an passion for social justice, excitement about what you and likeminded compatriots can do and anger at the unfairness of the system it is very hard to notice that by acting in the ways that draw praise and congratulations from your fellows you are merely promoting yourself and your compatriots at the expense of your cause. Indeed, if I could only say one thing about this whole issue it would be that righteous conviction, outrage and even empathy directed at particular narratives/accounts are all dangerous temptations leading to unintended consequences and that only careful studied consideration can be counted on to improve the situation.
- Yes, of course, there is always the (almost universally counterproductive) charge that unless you are a member of an underprivileged group your skepticism merely reveals your privilege. Now for those who have chugged the kool-aid and are ready to totally upend our usual epistemic framework (or even the idea of mind-independent, scientifically discernible reality) in service to the idea that whatever (the relatively privileged representatives of) underprivileged groups assert about what is or isn’t discriminatory/aggressive/etc.. then you might as well just skip to leaving angry comments on this post or holding me up for ridicule. But everyone who isn’t an extremist should accept the fact that personal experience is neither necessary to believe a claim nor a particularly reliable way to get at the truth generally. Thus, lacking personal experience in now way prevents one from talking to those who do have it, evaluating their credibility and degree of bias and looking at what people said and did in the past. Of course, I could be wrong and it could be that bias and kneejerk defense of my privilege blinds me to the truth. But this kind of deeply skeptical worry is a problem for everyone and ultimately we can only act based on our best guess about the truth despite whatever biases and shortcomings we may have. ↩
- My misspent youth spent in sketchy parts of Oakland hanging out with various IV drug users left me with an intense awareness of just how much the concerns and focus of rich white liberals on college campuses and the educated, relatively privileged members of ‘underprivileged groups’ they associate with differ from what matters for people in actual poverty and those minorities who are more likely to be the victims of police violence than rant in outrage on facebook about it. Spending time being outraged, particularly about merely verbal slights or behaviors, is a privilege that requires comfort and free time. While poor minorities are intently aware of discrimination and often very angry about unfair treatment their anger is directed at policies that directly make their life worse and overt animus against them. Indeed, coming from a rich well-educated world I was constantly shocked by willingness of poor whites to unselfconsciously make claims about race that would draw condemnation even from conservatives on campus in front of black friends. I was even more surprised by the willingness of poor blacks to not only laugh or agree but even encourage such conversations though in retrospect I shouldn’t have been. When life is tough and you face real animus and discrimination you don’t have the luxury of caring if people comply with the norms rich white liberals have adopted. What matters is who will stick up for you when shit goes down and who won’t and it makes all the concern over propriety seem viscerally absurd and even immoral insofar as it takes concern away from the poorest neighborhoods that are really suffering one group of rich white people (and a few minorities) who claim to care about the underprivileged can poor all their energy into alienating another group of white people (further discouraging them from helping) rather than actually making a difference on the ground. Sadly, humans are tribal creatures and it is far more motivating to get out and attack the other side’s outrageous behavior than it is to simply focus on making the daily reality of life for the worst off slightly better or try and work out how to reform the system and stop the kind of horrible abuse by bad cops, prison guards etc.. that everyone will admit are problems. Conservatives are no less guilty. Indeed, I’m arguably engaging in exactly the practice I criticize here right now though I do think there is real value in trying to work out a way to lesson animosity and redirect energies to fixing problems. ↩
- Of course, these are human flaws not liberal flaws and a similar process explains how groups on the right made up of otherwise pleasant, friendly and morally conscientious people can urge each other own to every more impressive heights of cruelty directed at those who are unable to defend themselves. The people on the right who end up sending women rape threats just for expressing their concern about gender equality or similarly charged issue (whether or not they are right) aren’t subhumans. They are caught up in the same spiral of reinforcing stories representing the other side as the enemy, discouraging doubt and moderation and prioritizing standing up for the moral righteousness of the community over kindness and compassion. However, as a liberal apostate rather than a conservative I’m more interested in convincing/arguing with people who identify as liberal simply because those are the people I tend to associate with and not because I in any way believe they are doing more harm. Indeed, just the opposite. ↩
- I find this attitude particularly absurd given the supposed goal of social justice advocates is to enable peaceful change eliminates structures of privilege. Given that, by hypothesis, its members of privileged groups who have the power and influence what the hell do they think they are doing if their job isn’t educating/persuading those with privileged? Are they really saying that for all their posturing when push comes to shove their visceral dislike of engaging with those they see as unsympathetic privileged assholes is more important than actually improving the lot of the less privileged? Yes, I realize there are perfectly defensible versions of this belief which simply amount to the attitude that individuals, particularly less privileged individuals, have a personal obligation to explain/persuade at any one time in the same way that a random Catholic you stop on the street doesn’t have a personal obligation to explain or defend Catholic beliefs to you. However, to extend the metaphor, they do (on the assumption their beliefs are correct) have an obligation to do their part in the communal effort to save souls by politely responding to anyone expressing a genuine desire to know about the faith and avoiding alienating them (even if they have a very skeptical attitude) while directing them to resources/people who are better equipped to persuade them of Catholic doctrine. Of course, sufficiently deep disagreement can’t always be bridged but if you aren’t even going to try how do you hope to prevail? ↩
So doesn’t this suggest that you can just hang around on Bitcoin forums/chats/etc and use that info to arbitrage your way into substantial sums (by using your info about likely resolution of bitcoin forking/update discussions to predict prices in ways that are already occupied in developed markets)?
I mean I suppose there is the limitation on leverage. You can borrow for stock trades using your stocks as collateral but I don’t believe you can do the same yet with bitcoin. But still seems like a good deal. Is there any other reason this won’t work/