Not to get nakedly political, but for someone who became old enough to start being aware of politics in the early 2000s, it was pretty easy to look at the GWB and Obama administrations and fall into the narrative of "oh, our side are clearly the good guys" as a kid and early in college (as I think most kids do). The last few years have made it clear to me that this amoral, either-with-me-or-my-enemy approach to politics is pretty independent of where you lie on the political spectrum. Every part of the spectrum has its shitty people and unfortunately we're in a cycle where those people are the ones dominating the discourse everywhere you look.
There's a reason wars of religion and ideology are always the bloodiest. If it's 1600s Europe and you're a soldier in a war of conquest, it's a lot easier to see the enemy soldiers and civilians as just trying to get by in the world buffeted by the same forces you are. On the other hand, if their entire existence and belief system are an affront to God, it was a hell of a lot easier for the worst and most bloodthirsty parts of the human psyche to kick in. The social technologies we've developed to handle pluralism nonviolently have been incredibly successful by the standards of most of human history. I guess all it takes is enough stupid, myopic, and/or amoral people to sacrifice the stability they engender for short-term political gain.
I see the same thing playing out (in much less dramatic fashion) among many of my nominally compassionate, kind-hearted friends. The other side isn't considered misguided, or to have a different understanding of the world (or heaven forbid, possibly more correct than you): they're just evil. Every dirty rhetorical trick to twist their words is fair game, and attempts from decent people to even point out that the other side is being misrepresented is giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
It happened just this weekend: my friend mocked one of the points the essay author made, and when I pointed out that he was misrepresenting (or misunderstanding) it, his response was something like "I don't think men are the ones who need help in the world at this point in time". There's no such thing as truth or honesty to most people, just "how can I spin this to support what I already know the answer _should_ be"
I avoid a lot of liberal "popular" sites because of this BS. It's not right.
It's become a moral situation for many people. in fairness, some of the social politics are literal life and death for certain subcommunities, so that is as deeply moral a question as it gets.
I think a lot of the reason for this is there's been a strong drift into separate parties by certain communities. so there's no diverse viewpoint in each (US) party and a consensus in-party that they can present...
E.g., if you believe trans people shouldn't be able to choose a restroom, you're probably Republican or affiliated. And if you're trans, you're probably Democrat. That's kind of a big deal in terms of public health to the transperson! Very much a moral question to them!
And that should be considered in why it's so hardcore of an issue.
This is entirely independent of how morally-weighted the question is: in fact, the more morally-weighted an issue is, the more you should want to make sure that you're being conscientious in your approach to it, and the more disgusting I find this lack of interest in the concept of honesty vs "do what you need to in order to win". The worst part is that, if you're wrong, what you're "winning" isn't a good thing at all!
I do understand what you're saying. I think I disagree with some what you're saying, but I think I significantly agree with you in spirit. Anyway. I have to head out and stop reading internet forums. :)
Similarly, there's been a bit of a turning of the tide publicly back towards sanity: the first thing I can recall seeing that signaled a defense of basic liberal tenets was The Atlantic's "The Coddling of the American Mind". No one with a baker's dozen of brain cells found anything new in that, but for the vast majority of people who only consider an idea when their chosen publications grant their approval, it was a huge step. (Pres Obama pushed back against this kind of barbarity in his own half of the political spectrum much earlier, but he was politely ignored).
It's kind of interesting to see Google culture out in front of the pendulum's swing back, too. I can't imagine this kind of an essay being published in most "blue tribe" fora.
Unless you're trying to endorse that memo, perhaps you should save this comment for when that actually happens.
Are we actually right? is a good question.
Are we letting people ask the provocative questions to move forward is the bigger question that must be asked. Wherever we are on the political question.
Truth often is uncomfortable.
Now, if I say "I think the memo was wrong", could you trust me? Would I be conforming ideologically to avoid blow back... or would I really believe it? :) I leave it to those who know me or hunt comment histories to form an opinion...
(Come to think of it, that's exactly what Google's official response did.)
Sociology hasn't had as much success as "hard" sciences so we should distinguish between the two. (for example with the controversy around major psychology experiments being unreplicable etc)
The important bit - to me, at least - is we don't run a witch hunt against the lone voices. If they are right, they should be heard out - if they are wrong, they can ignored. And, if dangerous, they can be no-platformed, etc.
I've yet to meet someone with such faith in science whose understanding of what "science" is goes beyond pop-science articles and things that all of their friends "know" are scientific fact.
Now read the grandparent comment again.
Perhaps it's just that the people who actually have the useful-science-shit to do aren't in stupid discussion threads like this one? ;)
The history of science has a kind of survivorship bias toward good ideas, and most people who think they're the next Galileo are almost definitely wrong.
It's no great stretch to find examples through history of this in different social contexts.