>Personally I think these movements are the natural result of pivoting our epistemological institutions from truth-seeking to progressive political advocacy.
What institutions are you claiming have shifted from "truth-seeking to progressive political advocacy"? It seems to me that the reason these institutions appear more progressive is that American conservatism is becoming less and less in touch with the truth. There are countless examples, but the two most obvious ones are climate change and the politicization of basic COVID precautions like mask wearing. When you stake out the claim that acknowledging climate change is a progressive viewpoint, the National Weather Service is going to start looking progressive when it reports facts.
>when the right asks, “how do we know that racism and not crime rates belies police shooting disparities?”
The problem is that when these questions are answered "the right" just dismisses the answers as biased. There is little to no way to satisfactorily answer that question in a way that will change people's minds if they already believe that police are justifiably harsher against Black people because Black people commit more crime.
> What institutions are you claiming have shifted from "truth-seeking to progressive political advocacy"? It seems to me that the reason these institutions appear more progressive is that American conservatism is becoming less and less in touch with the truth.
I think it's a feedback loop at this point, but as for "which institutions", the media and the academy are pretty prominent institutions that have largely come to describe themselves as activist institutions, including making arguments like "objectivity props up the status quo". Obviously these aren't monolithic institutions, and you still have a lot of variety within (especially the academy) with respect to the degree to which they've become progressive orthodoxies.
> The problem is that when these questions are answered "the right" just dismisses the answers as biased.
Again, I posit that's because the media and the social sciences have a track record of progressive bias. If they made a concerted effort over time to demonstrate good faith and a commitment to the truth wherever it leads (as opposed to outright identifying themselves as activists, although their honesty is worth something), I think far fewer on the right would reject a given claim as 'biased'. Even if I'm wrong, it must be something. There are a lot of people arguing that it's hopeless to interact with the right because they're fundamentally worse people or something, but clearly we haven't always had such a large contingent of "the right" who have completely divorced themselves from mainstream epistemology, so something is driving this change, and there's no reason to believe we can't stall or even reverse the phenomenon.
I don't know how to counter this argument because it just reverts back to the original question that djtriptych asked for which I don't have an answer. Open discussion failed. Many conservatives distanced themselves from the truth. That inherently leaves any truth seeking institution with a progressive bias because reality has a progressive bias. I agree that can turn into a feedback loop like you suggest, but what is the way out of that for these institutions? Is the National Weather Service supposed to distance itself from reality and introduce conservative bias into its coverage in order for conservatives to trust it more?
I'm also not sure what specifically you are referring to with the "objectivity props up the status quo" line. Do you have examples of institutions using that as an example to lie? Do you have an example of when an organization was able to "demonstrate good faith and a commitment to the truth wherever it leads" that was truly about to change falsely held beliefs of people on the right?
I think the answer is pretty simple: restore neutrality and objectivity to epistemological institutions. This doesn't mean that empirically false right-wing viewpoints need to be presented on equal footing with empirically true left-wing viewpoints, but rather that subjective issues should be described objectively rather than in the left-wing narrative. Similarly, when popular left-wing mistruths arise, these institutions should call them out as they would right-wing mistruths, however infrequently this may happen. In a word, "honesty".
Conservatives (like everyone) need to specifically believe there is a path forward for their legitimate viewpoints, rather than the current system which more-or-less equally discredits legitimate and illegitimate conservative viewpoints. In addition to restoring objectivity and neutrality to epistemological institutions, we could also actively encourage more conservatives to participate in these institutions (and of course, treat them fairly and respectfully as they accept the invitation) to reverse decades of driving them out of these institutions. Yes, this is basically affirmative action for conservatives, and I appreciate the irony.
Again, this phenomenon is decades in the making; expect it to take roughly just as long to repair.
>I think the answer is pretty simple: restore neutrality and objectivity to epistemological institutions. This doesn't mean that empirically false right-wing viewpoints need to be presented on equal footing with empirically true left-wing viewpoints, but rather that subjective issues should be described objectively rather than in the left-wing narrative.
How does this actually work in practice? What does this look like in terms of the coverage of climate change?
>Similarly, when popular left-wing mistruths arise, these institutions should call them out as they would right-wing mistruths, however infrequently this may happen. In a word, "honesty".
This already happens. Look at the NYT repealing of the Caliphate stories. How often do we get a retraction as big and public as that from the right?
>Conservatives (like everyone) need to specifically believe there is a path forward for their legitimate viewpoints, rather than the current system which more-or-less equally discredits legitimate and illegitimate conservative viewpoints. In addition to restoring objectivity and neutrality to epistemological institutions, we could also actively encourage more conservatives to participate in these institutions (and of course, treat them fairly and respectfully as they accept the invitation) to reverse decades of driving them out of these institutions. Yes, this is basically affirmative action for conservatives, and I appreciate the irony.
I will repeat my question from my last comment. Is there an example of this actually working? Is there an example of an institution that has lost the right's trust that was able to get it back through catering to their viewpoints while also remaining loyal to the truth? I am genuinely asking and not trying to be a jerk by just presenting rhetorical questions.
> How does this actually work in practice? What does this look like in terms of the coverage of climate change?
I think the climate science, reporting, and advocacy seems pretty good (at least with respect to bias). Maybe we could be a bit more aggressive about policing climate alarmism and other kinds of misinformation (the notion that banning plastic straws is going to have a measurable impact on wildlife such that it's worthy of our political will) or the pseudo-religious ideological takes like the arguments that climate change and "white supremacy" are inextricably linked or whatever. But in general, I don't see climate professionals behaving as badly as the media en masse or social scientists or other institutions--they seem to be genuinely open to bipartisan solutions and note that this openness doesn't require them to deny science (contrary to the dichotomous arguments that some make when people suggest cooperation or neutrality or objectivity).
> This already happens. Look at the NYT repealing of the Caliphate stories. How often do we get a retraction as big and public as that from the right?
Consistency, consistency, consistency. It's not enough to be honest or well-behaved once, it has to be a protracted effort over time. On the basis of this one event, a reasonable person wouldn't conclude that NYT is genuinely aspiring toward honesty and neutrality, much less someone who tends toward paranoia.
> I will repeat my question from my last comment. Is there an example of this actually working?
Sorry, if you asked this question, I missed it. I don't know of any examples because I don't know of other instances where people were divided epistemologically like this. Case studies would be interesting.
> Is there an example of an institution that has lost the right's trust that was able to get it back through catering to their viewpoints while also remaining loyal to the truth?
I don't think that "the right" has ever been this detached from mainstream epistemology in the first place--I don't think our institutions have ever been as compromised as they are now, at least not on a left-right axis. But there's probably no reason to limit our case studies to corruption of a left-right nature; we could equally look for any institution that lost the trust of a group of people and then gained it back (in part or in full).
> I am genuinely asking and not trying to be a jerk by just presenting rhetorical questions.
>I think the climate science, reporting, and advocacy seems pretty good (at least with respect to bias)
Doesn't this blow a hole in your whole argument? If there is little bias in this climate change coverage and conservatives still object to it, what makes you think they will accept any form of objective truth?
>Consistency, consistency, consistency. It's not enough to be honest or well-behaved once, it has to be a protracted effort over time. On the basis of this one event, a reasonable person wouldn't conclude that NYT is genuinely aspiring toward honesty and neutrality, much less someone who tends toward paranoia.
You aren't going to get an argument from me that the mainstream media is perfect on this. However I think it is clear that centrist and left leaning media is much much better about this than right leaning media.
>I don't think that "the right" has ever been this detached from mainstream epistemology in the first place--I don't think our institutions have ever been as compromised as they are now, at least not on a left-right axis. But there's probably no reason to limit our case studies to corruption of a left-right nature; we could equally look for any institution that lost the trust of a group of people and then gained it back (in part or in full).
Fair enough, but the loss of trust needs to be linked primarily to a perceived lack of truthfulness and I can't think of any examples of that either that aren't linked with an overt lack of truthfulness. Right now any bias in reporting, no matter how small, is magnified and even truthful and completely objective reporting is seen as biased. I simply don't know how you regain trust after that when the problem is more exaggerated in people's perception than in reality.
> Doesn't this blow a hole in your whole argument? If there is little bias in this climate change coverage and conservatives still object to it, what makes you think they will accept any form of objective truth?
I don't think so. I think the bias in other fields poisons the well of good faith. Specifically the conservative interface to these fields is probably angry people on the Internet who are as likely to bash them for their climate politics as for their opinions on BLM protests. If they were better plugged-in to the sciences, I think they would see that climate science is less problematic than critical studies.
> You aren't going to get an argument from me that the mainstream media is perfect on this. However I think it is clear that centrist and left leaning media is much much better about this than right leaning media.
I agree. I think even when things were good in these institutions, their relationship with the right was already strained.
> Fair enough, but the loss of trust needs to be linked primarily to a perceived lack of truthfulness and I can't think of any examples of that either that aren't linked with an overt lack of truthfulness.
I'm having a hard time thinking of examples too. I think that the 'perceived vs overt' consideration is just a reflection on how bad things have gotten--if you abuse the trust of someone for a long time, eventually their perception of affairs will become exaggerated. That's basically the whole thesis. Note that it's possible that we can't regain the trust of some people who have such a distorted view, but even still it's worth being honest if only to keep more people from crossing the threshold (and insodoing, those who have already crossed will become more marginalized and constitute a decreasing percentage of the population).
I think the well that is poisoned is not individual fields or institutions but the idea of institutions in general. It isn't that conservatives have any reason to distrust the National Weather Service or the Center for Disease Control specifically, it is that they distrust all institutions. I don't think there is much the NWS or CDC can do to change that while still remaining objective and truthful.
Like you said, some people may already be gone for good. My main concern is not necessarily bringing those people back. It is preventing them from corrupting the perception of more people who are still open to discussion. That brings us back to the original topic of social media censorship. Sometimes it isn't enough to constantly argue down these dangerous ideas. We likely need to start banning people who are actively doing harm.
> What institutions are you claiming have shifted from "truth-seeking to progressive political advocacy"? ...the politicization of basic COVID precautions like mask wearing
The most glaring example of this was public health authorities pushing for shut downs of pretty much all public spaces (including of red-coded protests), but then turning around and giving the greenlight to BLM protests as critical to public health.
Another example is the imbroglio about vaccine prioritization, though that's more about values (is it worth saving more lives if the saved lives are disproportionately white?) than it is about factual claims.
>The most glaring example of this was public health authorities pushing for hard shut downs of pretty much all public spaces, but then turning around and giving the greenlight to densely packed BLM protests as critical to public health.
The BLM protests weren't the first protests since the pandemic started. There were anti-lockdown protests going on before that which were just as if not even more "greenlit" than the BLM protests. I will also note that the BLM protesters were much more likely to follow basic precautions like mask wearing and only holding events outside when compared with the lockdown protesters. In the end multiple organizations reported that there were no noticeable COVID spikes related to the BLM protests.
>Another example is the imbroglio about vaccine prioritization, though that's more about values (is it worth saving more lives if the saved lives are disproportionately white?) than it is about factual claims.
I don't know what you are talking about here. Care to share a link to a mainstream institution arguing that we should prioritize diversity in vaccine recipients over saving lives?
> There were anti-lockdown protests going on before that which were just as if not even more "greenlit" than the BLM protests
No. Public health authorities did not greenlight anti-lockdown protests, as they rightly shouldn't have.
> In the end multiple organizations reported that there were no noticeable COVID spikes related to the BLM protests.
Even if this were the case (I'm skeptical, so I'd be curious to see cites of actual papers), that indicates a failure on the part of public health authorities: they should have been greenlighting the anti-lockdown protests as consistent with public health, so long as participants masked appropriately.
> Care to share a link to a mainstream institution arguing that we should prioritize diversity in vaccine recipients over saving lives?
>No. Public health authorities did not "greenlight" anti-lockdown protests, as they rightly shouldn't have.
At this point, I'm not sure what you even mean about public health official greenlighting protests. Both protests were allowed to happen. Both had parts of protests that were preplanned and parts that weren't. Are you just talking about the comments Fauci made in an unofficial capacity?
>Even if this were the case (I'd be curious to see cites of actual papers), that indicates a failure on the part of public health authorities: they should have been greenlighting the anti-lockdown protests as consistent with public health, so long participants masked appropriately.
That appears to be an argument about saving lives versus returning to normal. They aren't arguing that the vaccine should be given to people from diverse backgrounds just because. They are arguing that essential workers getting vaccinated is more important than getting the elderly vaccinated. They are simply noting the essential workers have a "high proportion of minority, low-income and low-education workers" which means they often aren't valued politically as much as other groups. Either way, they were only talking about recommendations that have no real power in deciding what happens with prioritization.
Interesting. If corroborated, it indicates that as much as cases rose among protest participants, the non-participant population strongly decreased their willingness to engage in other, non-protest activities. Though presumably that would also apply to the non-BLM protests, which raises the question of why public health authorities said that the non-BLM protests would raise COVID rates among participants without also noting that they would decrease COVID rates among non-participants.
> That appears to be an argument about saving lives versus returning to normal.
Not really:
> Harald Schmidt, an expert in ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, said that it is reasonable to put essential workers ahead of older adults, given their risks and that they are disproportionately minorities. “Older populations are whiter, ” Schmidt said. “Society is structured in a way that enables them to live longer. Instead of giving additional health benefits to those who already had more of them, we can start to level the playing field a bit.”
You are taking that quote from Schmidt out of context which removes the nuance. He isn't simply saying, "let's give the vaccine to brown people". But if you are going to use the excuse to stop explaining yourself because we'll never see eye to eye than I might as well stop putting any effort into this conversation too.
Harald Schmidt: "Vaccine campaign managers have typically paid more attention to the number of lives they can save than the demographic details of those lives. But Covid's outsized effect on people of color is injecting an element of social justice."
It's not out of context, and a great many people have observed the same. Here's Yglesias, not exactly known for right-wing takes:
> You’re opting for a strategy that leads to more Black deaths and more white deaths than the “vaccinate seniors first” strategy, but deciding that it’s better for equity and this is what ethics requires.
But this is once again removing context from the initial argument. The goal isn't to minimize Black deaths or even overall deaths. This has never been the goal at any step of the way otherwise we would have been in massive and prolonged lockdowns from day 1. The goal is to weigh the need to save lives with the need to let society continue functioning. That is where the essential worker argument comes into play. "Mitigating inequities" is listed as one of three bullet points in one of three categories in the decision making process that favors essential workers. You can't remove that context and pretend it is the overriding factor guiding these decisions.
23, Population-Wide Averted Deaths: Targetting the elderly over essential workers averts up to 6.5% additional deaths (~12% compared to ~5%). This accounts for network effects. That's hundreds of deaths per day.
31, ethics scoring rubric: diversity concerns net the essential worker approach two additional points over the elderly approach, not one as you claimed.
33, overall rubric: the elderly approach was favored until ethics was considered, where, driven by diversity concerns, the essential worker approach was granted 3 overall points as opposed to 1 for the elderly approach.
And the craziest thing is, at no point in the rubric is "fewer people will die" considered a pro on the part of the elderly-first approach.
Preventing deaths has been the goal from the very beginning. This abrupt switch from "we have to save as many lives as possible" to "who cares about total deaths?" is exactly the kind of "progressive" political advocacy that you denied existed at the very beginning of this thread.
For the record, I'm on the side of "save as many lives as possible" and have been since the very beginning.
> This has never been the goal at any step of the way otherwise we would have been in massive and prolonged lockdowns from day 1. The goal is to weigh the need to save lives with the need to let society continue functioning.
I agree with you so far...
> That is where the essential worker argument comes into play.
This is where you lose me. As I understand it, essential workers can continue working whether or not they're vaccinated (yes, some will get seriously sick, but it won't significantly impact the economy). Rather, we want to vaccinate them earlier than non-essential workers because they're more vulnerable by the riskier nature of their work. However, they're not more vulnerable than the elderly and yet the CDC recommends prioritizing them over the elderly because the elderly are disproportionately white while essential workers are disproportionately non-white. At least, this is how I understand the argument.
>This is where you lose me. As I understand it, essential workers can continue working whether or not they're vaccinated (yes, some will get seriously sick, but it won't significantly impact the economy). Rather, we want to vaccinate them earlier than non-essential workers because they're more vulnerable by the riskier nature of their work. However, they're not more vulnerable than the elderly
The key point here is that essential workers have a much greater exposure to COVID and much less control over the degree to which they are exposed to COVID. Most elderly people don't work. Those that do (and don't qualify as essential workers) can work from home. It is much easier for these people to minimize exposure. None of this logic has anything to do with race or any other form of diversity. None of this logic is questioning the fact that COVID is more dangerous to the elderly if they contract it. It is simply recognizing that from an ethical perspective it is likely fairer to prioritize the vaccine for people who are least able to minimize their own risk of exposure.
>and yet the CDC recommends prioritizing them over the elderly because the elderly are disproportionately white while essential workers are disproportionately non-white. At least, this is how I understand the argument.
Diversity factored into 1 of 3 subcategories in 1 of 3 top level categories. It isn't fair to say the "CDC recommends prioritizing [essential workers] over the elderly because the elderly are disproportionately white" when it is just one piece of a much larger and more nuanced discussion.
> Diversity factored into 1 of 3 subcategories in 1 of 3 top level categories. It isn't fair to say the "CDC recommends prioritizing [essential workers] over the elderly because the elderly are disproportionately white" when it is just one piece of a much larger and more nuanced discussion.
For the two top level categories in the rubric, Science and Implementation, the elderly-first approach had achieved a score of 6/6, while the essential workers-first approach had achieved a score of 5/6. Elderly-first was favored at that point.
For the third top level category, Ethics, elderly-first was given a score of 1/3, while essential workers-first was given a score of 3/3, which brought essential workers-first to 8/9 as opposed to the elderly-first score of 7/9, driving the decision.
As part of the subcategories of Ethics, essential workers-first netted 2 points from the subcategory "Mitigate Health inequities," the first a positive point for it because "Racial and ethnic minority groups disproportionately represented in many essential industries" and the second against the elderly-first because "Racial and ethnic minority groups under-represented among adults >65." That is what drove the outsize result in Ethics.
Here's a direct question for you: diversity considerations netted the essential workers-first approach 2 points. Would you say that "significantly greater number of lives saved" should be worth the same as diversity (2 points), a bit less (1), or a bit more (3)? Or do you go with the rubric and say the number of lives saved merits no consideration at all, because it's not an ethical concern on par with diversity?
You can remove the "Mitigate health inequities" subcategory and the essential workers approach still comes out ahead in the ethics category due to the "Promote Justice" category which is the fairness of controlling exposure reason I detailed in my last comment.
Minimizing deaths isn't being ignored, it plays a factor in every single one of the top level categories. It simply isn't a line item itself. It also needs to be weighed with other health considerations. For example, the essential worker approach reduces the number of infections and we should all know by now that COVID shouldn't be judged in a purely binary way with deaths versus recoveries.
Also I am not putting a value judgement on these approaches. I am explaining the way I interpret the judging criteria.
As a compromise, even "minority elderly first, then non-minority elderly, then the general minority population, then the general non-minority population" would be better than choosing to focus on essential workers just because they're disproportionately minority (which is valuing abstract signalling for support for racial justice over, you know, actual black lives).
What institutions are you claiming have shifted from "truth-seeking to progressive political advocacy"? It seems to me that the reason these institutions appear more progressive is that American conservatism is becoming less and less in touch with the truth. There are countless examples, but the two most obvious ones are climate change and the politicization of basic COVID precautions like mask wearing. When you stake out the claim that acknowledging climate change is a progressive viewpoint, the National Weather Service is going to start looking progressive when it reports facts.
>when the right asks, “how do we know that racism and not crime rates belies police shooting disparities?”
The problem is that when these questions are answered "the right" just dismisses the answers as biased. There is little to no way to satisfactorily answer that question in a way that will change people's minds if they already believe that police are justifiably harsher against Black people because Black people commit more crime.