[marcosdumay]

Well, if you want to do it right, you don't just "not discuss" the orthodoxy, you go out of your way to make discussing the orthodoxy very clearly forbidden on the research circle. You put "we won't allow anybody to talk about lightning" on the first paragraph of your institution's code of conduct. You actively censor people discussing it, and do all you can to erase it from their history.

On a related matter, people actively insisting that you discuss the lightning issue may be consciously trying to do the exact opposite, and get you in trouble. And, of course, if discussing the orthodoxy gets people in trouble, that's a different issue from the orthodoxy itself and you may be more or free to talk about it, or maybe less, it has to be independently evaluated.

[DarylZero]

With Damore there are multiple lightning issues. One is a narrative that tries to equate women to men. Another is a narrative about income distribution that tries to provide justification for the inequality.

The equation of women to men is tacked onto the inequality justification like an epicycle. It has to be seen in that context.

All of the people inside Google politicking over wages should be viewed a kind of organized conspiracy to exclude outsiders from the golden goose's eggs. An economic narrative says wages are being traded for labor, but that's not how anything works operationally.

[ajuc]

> Well, if you want to do it right, you don't just "not discuss" the orthodoxy, you go out of your way to make discussing the orthodoxy very clearly forbidden on the research circle.

Nah. That makes it a forbidden fruit attracting rebellious youth like nothing else. I've seen it happen in communist Poland regarding the Katyń massacre for example. You don't outright say "we don't talk about Katyń here" - that would just make it more popular and indirectly admit you are wrong.

What you actually do is invent your own version of facts that works emotionally just as well (Germans did it), spread it everywhere, and punish people in a way that is reasonable and provides plausible denial. For example my father (very interested in history since he was a kid) repeated a class in high school because he failed history - giving the "wrong" answers on exams.

It's not that they will kill your family - there's no need usually. It's just you're making everything harder for yourself.

[marcosdumay]

You seem to be talking from the point of view of the powerful people that created the orthodoxy.

If you are pulling a Kolmogorov, it's because you have no attachment at all to the orthodoxy, and you'd prefer nobody to believe on it.

[ajuc]

Ah, I didn't realized you were talking from Kolmogorov POV. I don't think exposing the censorship explicitly would be good for his career. Better to explain it to colleagues privately.

In oppressive regime everything is a tradeoff between morality and convenience, and you need to pick your battles.

[marcosdumay]

I don't think explicitly saying "we don't discuss politics here" would endanger his career. It may be dangerous if you do it just out of the blue, but if you have any minimally relevant reason, you can state it without fear of persecution.