[yosito]

The phrase that stands out to me in this is "the riot of human diversity". It's a great phrase. Probably worthy of a book or even a manifesto.

I'm a multicultural person. Dual US/EU citizen. I've spent years living in each of the US, South America, the Caribbean and Europe.

Since the mid-2010s, I've been acutely aware of different societal pressures to conform, and I've been "cancelled" by various groups of aquaintences over having opinions or failing to have opinions that the group demanded. Thankfully, I've got a few loyal friends, and a strong sense of self that have allowed me to recover and thrive.

Through it all, one thing I've learned very well is that people in the world have very diverse views and opinions. It's a beautiful thing, and I will never make someone my enemy over their views. I have one moral standard to which I hold myself and others: do no harm. Beyond that, there is room for tolerance and disagreement.

[lodi]

> I have one moral standard to which I hold myself and others: do no harm.

Right, but who determines what's "harmful"? Is it more harmful to punish a child or to not punish him? Is a cartoon of Jesus harmful? Muhammad? Are "micro-agressions" actually traumatic?

Furthermore, what does it mean to "do" something? Is "meat-eating" a default state, or are you actively "doing" harm every day you continue to not be a vegan? Are you "doing" harm if you purchase some sneakers without knowing whether they were produced in a polluting or exploitative manner?

---

I'm personally not a moral relativist; I think there are better and worse answers to most of the issues above. But I've just found that short commandments like "do no evil" or "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" don't really offer any real guidance when tested against challenging real-world ethical problems.

[yosito]

> Right, but who determines what's "harmful"?

Well, it's certainly not determined by some objective standard, or a god. Every culture, and even every individual has different moral views. When I say "do no harm" that's a relative statement, relative to the context and parties involved. What's morally apporiate changes depending on the moral contract between parties. I can call my drinking buddy a "fucking idiot" for making a mistake, and there's no harm done. But if I call my grandmother a "fucking idiot", it would harm her a great deal. What's harmful in one context may be fine in another. Morality is like an instinct that humans have evolved to allow us to detect when something may be considered harmful to ourselves, our partners, our community and our planet. It's not always an infallible sense, but it's often pretty good and useful to pay attention to.

Back to your question: who determines what's harmful? Our innate sense of morality has evolved to show us what's harmful and what's not. The more each of us focuses on listening to and improving our own sense of morality and harm, the better we'll be at making decisions that avoid harm as a society and as a species. Ultimately, I'm a humanist, and one of my favorite quotes about morality is GK Chesterton's response when asked to write an article answering the question, "What's wrong with the world?". His response, "Dear sir, I am."

One reason I don't concern myself too much with the morality of others, is that the only person's morality I am responsible for determining is my own.

[pessimizer]

> Our innate sense of morality has evolved to show us what's harmful and what's not.

Who is this "our" and "us" you're referring to if everyone has a different sense of morally? Are you talking about the evolution of a "culture" or of "every individual." If these are all different, why would their "evolutions" have the same goal?

This all seems very empty. What's the difference between what you've said here and "all people have different moral frameworks, and they all follow those" (which I don't think is possible to dispute)?

[yosito]

Our/us refers to humanity. I'm a humanist. Though I suppose other species also have evolved a moral sense.

[kashyapc]

Richard Dawkins once used the word "humane-ist" (and humane-ism) to be considerate of other species. Though I like the idea, the word feels a bit "stretched"; I don't know why. (Maybe it's the humanist in me that's speaking :-))

[marginalia_nu]

Indeed, it seems the first struggle should be to develop the ability to do the things we think are correct before even considering that the most correct thing is.

If you sit around developing elaborate ethical systems as to how to act in every situation, but fail to live that system, then it's ultimately a pointless waste of time. It's better to a decent guy all the time than a hypothetical saint acting like a practical asshole.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

> and I've been "cancelled" by various groups of aquaintences over having opinions or failing to have opinions that the group demanded.

Lost a job? Lost housing? Lost income? Were you "cancelled" or did various groups of acquaintances simply decide they didn't enjoy your company and that feeling led to a gradual (or maybe not so gradual) falling away of contact and interaction?

I'm not for one moment suggesting that you should have different opinions. But in general people have both:

   1. opinions
   2. preferences on how and when opinions are expressed
   3. preferences for the company of people who don't violate (2)

If you and your various (past) groups of acquaintances really didn't agree on (1), then it's maybe entirely natural that over time, you'd no longer be a part of those groups. And if you disagreed about (2), then it's more than just natural, it's inevitable.

I have friends with whom I do not agree on a number of things, but they tend to be things that we don't need to talk about much, if ever. If either of us ever pushed their point in these domains, I suspect we would fairly quickly cease to be friends.

I have some other friends (and even a few family members) where we don't agree, but we do agree about how to disagree, how to debate, how to argue, what kinds of evidential levels for our opinions are required if we are going to disagree, and how we will end discussion. In these cases, (1) is not shared but (2) is, and so these are people whose company I can still actively enjoy.

I don't want to hang out much with people who see the world very differently from me, and more importantly, people whose timing and methods of expressing their opinions are quite different than what I find appropriate. If I'm not friends with these people, I haven't "cancelled" them, we've just followed an entirely natural path towards finding groups of people we can enjoy being with.

[yosito]

> I don't want to hang out much with people who see the world very differently from me

That sounds like a perfect way to become a closed-minded bigot, using the original definition of the word.

I have friends and family that see the world quite differently than me. And I still take time to visit them, listen to them, and care for them.

When I was cancelled, I was actively attacked, sometimes literally having my life threatened, lost some jobs and memberships in different organizations. Mostly for failing to be offended by things the group told me I was required to be offended by.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

> That sounds like a perfect way to become a closed-minded bigot, using the original definition of the word.

What I choose to read or watch is really completely orthogonal with who I choose to spend time with. I enjoy spending a significant amount of time investigating contrary points of view, and find it very valuable.

That does not mean I wish to spend the time I spend with others hanging out with people who actively hold contrary positions particularly if we do not agree on the terms of discussion. I can be respectful of those people [0], and listen to them, without making the choice to spend (optional) time with them.

If your cancelling really involved those things, then I am sorry that you had to experience this, and am glad that you've found some peace in the aftermath. An awful lot of what is called "cancelling" at the present time does not amount to the things you've described.

[0] EDIT: actually, this is dishonest. If someone does not agree with the same terms of discussion, I find it very hard to actually respect them, even if I can "be respectful" in person.

[jaywalk]

If you can't even respect someone who sees the world differently, how can you do any real "investigation" of actual contrary views? It's sad to me that you don't even see a problem with this, because this is exactly why things are they way they are today.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

I didn't say I could not respect someone who sees the world differently. I said I could not respect someone who doesn't agree to the same terms of discussion.

Let's take a recent article linked on HN, on astral codex by Scott Alexander regarding Ivermectin. If I was to engage in a discussion with someone about Ivermectin, I would more or less insist that we both read this article as a starting point, since it already gathers, critiques and synthesizes almost every study that has been done. If someone wishes to defend the use of Ivermectin in connection with COVID19, then I'd have to insist that they answer the evidence presented in that article that strongly suggests that there is no reason to use it in parts of the world that do not have significant levels of parasitic worm infestation.

Now, perhaps they have some similar "reference" article that they'd insist we also read, and also had some similar basic evidence that they feel I should respond to. That's fine.

But we have to agree that our discussion is going to be evidence based, and that when I bring up evidence that contradicts their stated claims, they need to respond to the evidence by doing more than saying "I don't believe that'. Same in reverse, obviously.

If they can't do that, then sure, I can't respect them. If they can do that, then regardless of where we end up, I'm going to have respect for their position, even if I don't agree with it.

[Kye]

Some people's idea of free speech is really about their freedom to punch down, and they suddenly become very anti-free speech when criticized. Then they double down, and people set boundaries, and they complain about those boundaries...

Much of the noise about cancel culture looks a lot like DARVO.

[dfxm12]

There was a great line in last Sunday's Curb Your Enthusiasm where Larry David (half) jokes about free speech, saying something like "I don't know about free speech. Well, I should have it. The constitution should have said free speech for Larry David, everyone else, check with him first."

Larry is effectively holding up a mirror to the type of people you describe, and yeah what you say is true about people who complain about cancel culture, too. I try to engage anyone worried about losing a job due to something like that. I'll ask, why don't you organize with your co-workers and collectively bargain for labor protections, or consider voting in politicians who are for stronger labor laws, and all of a sudden they remember that their corporatist leanings are stronger than any feelings they may have about the "cancel culture" boogeyman.

It's plain to see that too much of the discourse about free speech or cancel culture doesn't come from a place of good faith...

[nybble41]

> I'll ask, why don't you organize with your co-workers and collectively bargain for labor protections, or consider voting in politicians who are for stronger labor laws, and all of a sudden they remember that their corporatist leanings are stronger than any feelings they may have about the "cancel culture" boogeyman.

It is possible to disagree with your proposed solutions as well as cancel culture. The problem with cancel culture is not in the fact that people are free to (dis)associate with others as they choose, so your suggestions to force association do nothing to fix the core issue. You may be allowed to keep your job, under duress, but you've still been "cancelled". The problem is that some people resort to disassociation rather than practicing tolerance; this is a subtle social problem and requires a more nuanced solution.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

I have to confess that I don't understand your comment in any way.

If labor laws or a labor contract prevent you from losing your job for tweeting "COVID19 is no worse than having your left foot amputated", then when you do in fact tweet this, and do not lose your job, surely you have neither lost your job, nor been "cancelled".

Maybe I just don't understand what you mean.

[nybble41]

Being "cancelled" is about people's attitude toward you, not whether you remain employed. People will still know what you said, and still not want anything to do with you; that's what I mean when I say you're still "cancelled". They may behave immaculately professional toward you (because they're required to) but it won't be a pleasant place to work, to say the least, and you probably won't choose to remain long unless you're unusually stubborn.

In any case—I don't care for cancel culture myself, but I wouldn't risk the far more fundamental freedom of association over it. Social ostracism ("cancelling") is sometimes necessary, but only as a last resort. People need to be shown that there are better ways to resolve disagreements and react to objectionable behavior, past or present, which don't involve rejecting the entire person and all the good things that they've done.

[hunterb123]

Never change! Diverse thought is much more important than "diversity" itself. These days it seems there is tolerance for the superficial diversity, but no tolerance for diverse thought. If you have a controversial thought you will be persecuted by the group until you conform. Also it seems if you are part of a certain diversity sometimes you are pressured to have a certain thought even harder than another person.

Try to have a debate with them first, if you are met with hostility they aren't your friends, they don't know how to convey their supposed thoughts or even control their emotions. Politely tell them to fuck off and find a better group of more accepting people.

[goodpoint]

> do no harm. Beyond that, there is room for tolerance and disagreement.

This is just a nice-sounding platitude. What is or isn't harmful is not written in stone. On the contrary, is a hugely polarizing topic that informs the legal system. People get to live or die because of views and opinions.

[yosito]

> People get to live or die because of views and opinions.

I disagree that my (largely uninformed) opinions really carry that much weight. If I were a doctor and patients were asking my medical opinion, then it would be extremely immoral to give them a harmful opinion. My opinioms about which politician said something racist or taboo are likely inconsequential. And of course if I did find that my opinion were having harmful consequences, I would change it, because I'm a moral person.

[jjulius]

>I have one moral standard to which I hold myself and others: do no harm.

How do you define "harm"? What if one's view(s) prompt them to vote in favor of things (or support policies - take your pick) that bring harm to others?

[marginalia_nu]

Maybe exercise some humility instead of jumping to the conclusion that you are right and they are wrong? I'd take the opportunity to seek to understand how someone living in the same world as you, with access to the same facts, and the same mental faculties, how such a person has come to a different conclusion about what does harm.

[Barrin92]

disagree with this and the language of "riot" of diversity is very telling.

It's a sort of purely individual definition of freedom in which a free society is one of permanent dissent. Dissent not as a tool to come to consensus but as a way of life and it is fundamentally anti-governmental, it sounds nice but does not work. If everyone assumed this position, the end result is permanent dysfunction.

I can't remember who said it might have been Zizek but he proposed that the proper understanding of democratic freedom is something akin to: "Say your opinion, say it freely, come to a consensus, but then shut up and obey.". That is to say, in any group that wants to function, diversity or dissent is not a permanent state of affairs, at some point when one needs to act options need to be closed off. Abstract freedom is always embedded within social order. You can only freely walk the street because you rely on the fact that everyone else conforms to the rules of traffic.

"Do no harm" sounds nice but it's not sufficient, it may even be wrong because harm cannot be entirely avoided. You cannot navigate the world and act in the world as a group without actively making concrete choices, sometimes to the detriment of individuals. People like Snowden or Ai Weiwei celebrate resistance because permanent resistance is their job. Rebelling is their profession. It's very sympathetic on the surface but it does not address how people ought to organize society.

[photochemsyn]

Great comment, and tolerance and disagreement is to be encouraged.

Where I find a lot of serious conflict and resentment is when it comes to expanding on 'do no harm'. For example, I'm in favor of democratizing corporations, on the German model perhaps, and I view investment capitalism as a decrepit dead-end system, and the financialization of the economy as an unmitigated disaster.

Now, a lot of people I've talked to view these views as 'harmful' indeed. Investment capitalism, they believe, is the greatest engine of economic and social development in human history and any attempt to role it back would destroy the economy and bring mass ruin, poverty, desperation, North Korean dystopia etc.

I usually respond by saying, well, the employees of a corporation should have just as much power over major corporate decisions as the shareholders in the corporation, and capital flows should not be entirely controlled by a few billionaires and their pet political puppets. If the general public believes capital should go to say, renewable energy corporations rather than fossil fuel corporations, there should be a democratic process, well, why not?

So, we then need people to explicitly describe their own personal views on what 'do no harm' means before we can have a discussion in which participants do not view each other as threats to their own survival...

[nybble41]

> For example, I'm in favor of democratizing corporations, on the German model perhaps, and I view investment capitalism as a decrepit dead-end system, and the financialization of the economy as an unmitigated disaster.

I disagree with you on every single point, but I would still support your right to believe these things and not consider it "harm".

Where we might run into problems lies in how you decide to go about implementing your proposed solution. To me the standard political approach of imposing rules backed up by fines, prison sentences, and capital punishment (beyond the usual proportional, reciprocal responses to others' actions) is harm in and of itself regardless of the intended outcome or "democratic process" and this point is non-negotiable. But if you want to collect together a group of like-minded individuals and create a society to your liking through entirely voluntary arrangements, be my guest.

[photochemsyn]

Well the model is Germany, where Tesla employees would have comparable representation (voting board members) to Tesla shareholders. It seems like a pretty good model, I bet even Elon Musk would support it as he's made his disdain for Tesla shareholders clear.

Also, doesn't it just make sense that the employees of a corporation, the ones doing the work, might have at least as good of, if not a much better idea of, the direction the company should take on certain issues, as compared to the shareholders?

[nybble41]

This wasn't really the point of the thread, but I'm willing to discuss it.

The employees may be "the ones doing the work" but capital investment is key to allowing them to do that work productively. The shareholders provide that capital, which (formally or informally—they're not obligated to provide it in the first place if they don't like the terms) means that they get to decide how it's used. The board is their agent in making these decisions. If they're smart they'll pay attention to what the employees recommend within their area of expertise—but then again "individual contributors" are often more or less ignorant of, or at least less focused on, certain aspects of running a profitable business which are nonetheless essential to remaining in business. To pick one obvious example: If your engineers create something very impressive from a technical point of view, but there isn't a large enough market willing to pay what it would cost to manufacture, then the product will fail. If that happens, the engineers are salaried employees and have already been paid for the work they put in designing the product. They may be looking for new jobs if the company goes under, but the shareholders who fronted the capital for that development hoping for a long-term payoff risk losing their entire investment.

If employees of a publicly traded company want representation on the board they can always buy shares, individually or e.g. via their union if they have one. However, not wanting to take that kind of risk is a big part of why people choose to work as employees of someone else's company rather than being self-employed in the first place. It's safer to take the regular paycheck and invest your savings in a diversified portfolio rather going all-in and investing heavily in your employer.

[photochemsyn]

Well then we just need to restructure corporate law to ensure that half (okay a third) of the shares are reserved for employees and one of the results of employment is to become a shareholder.

As shareholders are organized into funds, employees can organize into worker organizations and as with shareholder unions, they then get a voting board member, who could be elected by the workers to represent them on the board.

This results in a power balance between capital and labor (both of which are required for a successful business). Yes, this means higher wages and rights for labor relative to the current situation in the USA, and less dividends for shareholders, but that seems fair doesn't it?

[nybble41]

> … half (okay a third) of the shares are reserved for employees and one of the results of employment is to become a shareholder.

So to become an employee you need to "buy in" to the company? Or is this your sign-on bonus? Can an employee divest themselves of their shares, or are they only a token shareholder with no ability to trade? Do new hires dilute their shares or does the company need to decide the maximum number of employees in advance?

This is an interesting structure but I don't think most employees would care for it very much, since it forces them to be invested in their employer rather than holding a safer diversified portfolio. I would certainly be opposed to requiring this structure as a matter of corporate law—I don't want to be a shareholder in my employer. I have that option already and I choose not to take it. If the company should happen to fail I don't want to lose my job and my life savings simultaneously.

> This results in a power balance between capital and labor (both of which are required for a successful business).

It would certainly change the power balance, by undermining the power of the shareholders to direct their own investments, which hardly seems "fair". I do not see this as an improvement, either as an investor or as an employee. The reason for the former is obvious, but even as an employee I want the shareholders to be free to handle their own domain, which is ensuring that my employer remains a profitable business capable of remaining in business and keeping those steady paychecks coming. People like to complain about undue focus on quarterly gains, but in practice my direct, financial interest in the company, and that of my coworkers, is very short-term; most obligations between us are settled within a few weeks, the longest (like accrued/borrowed paid time off) last a year or less. I can leave at any time and I don't have to worry about finding a willing replacement first. The shareholders, on the other hand, are invested in the long-term success of the company. Even if they don't personally hold the shares for long, they need someone else who believes that the company will be successful to buy their shares. So as an employee who prefers the certainty of a paycheck over the vagaries of investment returns, and would rather not to be looking for new employers on a frequent basis, I am happy to let the shareholders take responsibility for the company's long-term success and reap the corresponding rewards when they make the correct decisions. I do not want to interfere with their decisions, or to empower my coworkers without a shareholder's stake in the company's future to do so.