> Certain people or organizations, due to their size (organizations) or influence (people/organizations) become some sort of judges in moral topics and the problem here is that they usually have backgrounds in other stuff, have not been elected by anyone (often times they just start screaming louder, and people follow) and do not apply any form of fairness to the accused.

Indeed. And how far does this go? What if banks, or grocery stores, start denying someone services because they were the subject of social opprobrium? A conference is not quite the same thing, but it is still a means by which some people are able to derive their livelihoods.

They already do. Some, for example, refuse to allow gun shops to use their clearance networks.

I heard an interesting idea today. "Boomers" have been criticizing "young people today" for being "snowflakes". It might be the case that with their fresher perspective on technology and culture, the younger people realized the perilous path involved in taking action now. Older, less savvy people are being caught unaware of the ramifications of certain types of speech and action in the modern world.

I think many young people, including those referred to as "snowflakes" are hardly being cautious with their online behavior, or what they say to people.

They gave rise to Snapchat, knowing that they'd want to control what went on the record. Now they're the first to figure out the new rules of public communication.

As a young person, I have to say I agree with the "boomers". People are way too thin skinned and find excuses to become offended.

Freedom of speech and the ability to have different opinions is infinitely more important than people's feelings.

New ideas come and go.

Most of the "free love" generation came along thinking their parents were squares and that they were creating a new, better society. Drug overdoses and HIV turned that ship around quick.

Maybe it's more accurate to say that the better ideas resist change.

Entrenched ideas resist change. Some of the worst ideas in human history have been the ones that have stuck around the longest. It took over a century to adopt the heliocentric model which was centuries after Aristarchus of Samos first proposed the idea.

Ptolemaic cosmology was hardly a bad idea. It was the simplest model that fit the available evidence for a long time. The Heliocentric model didn't really make sense until Newton's theory of gravitation was developed.

https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-great-ptolemaic-sma...

Makes me wonder if there are any nutty ideas today that are right but seem to not make sense because we are missing a vital piece of theory that would explain how they work.

Some of the ancient justifications for heliocentrism included "fire is awesomer than earth"

Dark matter and dark energy come to mind.

Those are more like the crazy complex epicycles in Ptolemaic cosmology. They point to something seriously wrong.

I'm on the fence about the revisionist view that the Ptolemaics were rational at the time, but in a way its optimistic. I have always been suspicious of the "only people in the last 500 years had brains" bias. I wonder if all ages have had that bias?

>I have always been suspicious of the "only people in the last 500 years had brains" bias. I wonder if all ages have had that bias?

This is an incredibly interesting point to consider. I would like to say that yes, every age had this kind of a bias, but perhaps that's not true. Life was rather similar during the time of the Roman Republic and the beginning of the Renaissance. The daily life of average people, their wealth and tools weren't that different. They certainly have much less difference then the difference between the start of the Industrial Revolution and today. Perhaps people in previous ages didn't have this kind of a bias because they didn't see such a huge change in people's lives?

One thing that we seem to be adopting as a society is the idea that we need some kind of reasonable evidence for our beliefs. Usually this means that evidence based on the science of nature prevails, but we haven't really been able to push this onto all areas of life. I certainly think that we've managed to cover more fields than in the previous ages though.

Once I gained a sense of how deeply, horrifically stupid most people are, a lot of my questions about historical populations clicked into place really seamlessly.

Looking at the way most people (including most I know) approach both factual and moral questions, there's no belief in history that seems implausible, from chattel slavery to the humors theory to epicycles to the Inquisition. Most people really don't have the capacity to believe anything but what their social environment tells them to, and it's much more productive to consider the incentives and available information of the narrow few who are capable of doing so.

> It took over a century to adopt the heliocentric model which was centuries after Aristarchus of Samos first proposed the idea.

Hindsight is always 20-20

To be fair here, back in the 1990s, when Usenet was king, one common FAQ said words to the effect that “you should never post anything online that you don’t want to be published on the front page of The New York Times”.

There’s a reason why I deleted my Twitter years ago; it just is not possible to have civil discourse and well-made arguments in 160 characters (or whatever Twitter’s limits are these days); instead it’s like a bunch of chimpanzees throwing poop at each other.

Scott Alexander recently posted a long entry where he, among other things, misses the kinds of long winded rational arguments places like talkorigins.org had over a decade ago:

https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/10/30/new-atheism-the-godles...

Boomers were criticized by their parents for being soft and lazy.

>happens on both sides of the political spectrum

Can you provide any examples to support this?

It's a mistake to classify ethical norms as politics. We just happen to be living in an of era populism where rampant unethical normalization is masquerading as politics.

A honest look at society forces us to recognize the trade-offs that exist between values. Politics is how we negotiate conflicting values.

Fighting over ethical norms is actually a pretty good definition of politics. Or one key aspect of it, at least.

And this is where it ends, no communication happens because each side set its straw man and start attacking their strawman. From what I see, the technical community is mostly neutral, this time the offense is one sided

Also very much part of politics, although not actually at issue anywhere near this debate, as nobody is arguing against those things.

On the contrary, that's the exact issue at the heart of what happened here.

Way to fail the ideological turing test:

https://praxtime.com/2014/05/27/ideological-turing-test/

Exactly, people saying what is happening with Trump "politics" is really out of touch with what is going on. This is a fight for America, it is not politics.

At no other time in history have so many American considered just voicing support for a democratically elected leader is some kind of hate crime. It's honestly a little fucked up.

How about try talking to that person, having a conversation, finding out that maybe, hey maybe, you actually agree on a lot of things? We did that in the Bush era, and that man's administration (Cheney, Rummy and Wolfie mostly) wanted to start a war with every nation in the middle east (and did get a pretty good start .. a start that Obama kept growing on mind you).

When you classify everyone as "the other," you are no better and maybe a little worse, because you don't allow yourself to listen.

A fight for America, and a fight for what it's values are is exactly what politics is about. I mean, politics isn't really about voting about the color of a bikeshed; rights of people and ethics and how we negotiate large swathes of population having conflicts is the core of politics, and only when there's a consensus about the big things (which is not the case today) then "politics" becomes arguing about trivialities.

In other words, the other side should accept us, regardless of our politics, because that's human thing to do and politics should not interfere with normal human endeavors. But we are OK to exclude the other side because it's beyond politics, those guys are just pure evil.

I hope you are smart enough to recognize it can't work this way. There always have been politics and it was always "fight for America". Even before there was America, actually. If you want to have any civil society, you need to learn to engage with people who disagree with you. If you can't, both sides lose.