gemini://gerikson.com/gemlog/lobsters-drafts/Politics-2.gmi

The big problem with wanting to entirely eliminate discussion on “politics and ethics” (I’m using this shorthand to try to encapsulate the debate) is that deciding what is political is *itself* political.

An example — the discussion on whether women are biologically less predisposed to be good at computer science is, in *my opinion*, a stalking horse for people who prefer that women have a segregated or unequal position in society. Now, holding that opinion openly does not give you much traction in debating in most liberal democratic countries, at least not on a policy level. But shifting the window of the debate does help advance the position.

So, people who have these opinions talk up, or sponsor, or perform, or find research that supports their position. If someone challenges their motives, they will respond “oh, we’re just raising questions, expanding research, *doing science*. Why are you bringing politics into this?” And if someone tries to challenge the results by pointing to external factors (such as structural practical discrimination against women or other minorities) they will respond “that’s actually not interesting in this case, we’re only looking at a sample group, conditions in country A and entirely different from country B”, etc.

In this case, the argument is made, and objections will be countered with the reason they are not addressing the argument, they are “political”.

Therein lies the danger in defining what’s political in nature, and banning it. The people who hold deeply unpopular beliefs are experts at skirting to “rules” of normal discourse, and we should not make their lives easier.

Does this mean that Lobsters should be a free-for-all? No! We still have tags, and rules for what is on-topic or not, and it’s up to us as a community to police ourselves. People who try to hijack or troll a thread with political rhetoric should be censored, but politics should be allowed to be expressed on the site when it’s appropriate.

It all boils down to whether you believe that humanity should be divided into tiers, or whether you (like I do) believe that each human being, regardless of all the superficial differences in skin color, gender preference, religious beliefs, social origins etc deserve the right to be able to make the best of their life and potential.

My point is, these people are not arguing in good faith. They are not interested in advancing the state of human knowledge *per se*, they are using the respect for the scientific process to advance an agenda that they already have decided on. When enough people have been convinced that women “can’t do math”, they can start to argue that spending as much money on female education as on male’s is a waste of resources, and should be cut back.

The same process can, *mutandi mutandis*, be used to argue that minorities should be excluded from certain positions, that gay people should not be allowed to work in certain fields, etc.

That’s an ethical/political standpoint that’s been paid lip service as the default for decades, because the main proponent for a society built on the other vision was defeated in the most devastating war humanity has yet fought.

────────────────────────────────────────────

About this category: “Sometimes I post to lobste.rs, sometimes I write angry rants that end up here but not there”

The occasional geminer - an artisanal, handcrafted gemlog

Politics on Lobsters