In economics there is the idea that the ideal amount of crime is not zero -- it is instead where the marginal cost of deterring crime equals the marginal cost of crime. It’s not obvious why the same logic would not apply to thoughts we abhor the way we abhor crime.
I don't think my reply last night was as constructive as it could be, so I reread the Scott Alexander piece quickly this morning and it's not helpful for a few reasons. First, the right *keeps finding Fionas*—the post isn't about quibbling over whether prominent folks on the right having a hard time with accents is a problem. Second and more importantly, once you have a problem with embedded honest-to-goodness white nationalists, they employ a deliberate strategy of multiplying and intensifying casual racism to move it towards more overt racism.
Organized white nationalists are also at least as guilty of equating examples of "racism by consequence" with more overt racism to excuse and normalize overt racism as is the left, who are the implied problem in Alexander's piece. We know that they do this from years of access to leaks from far-right organizations and deradicalized people who are trying to help us understand it, and knowing it, it's just useless at this point to employ an analysis that isn't taking into account the coded, underhanded strategies of organized overt racists. And they will explicitly denounce white nationalism and white nationalists (but will not abandon their coded work for white nationalism) if found out.
I realize that posts like Alexander's get a lot more play than posts that actually help navigate the strategies of organized, uncontroversial racists. So here is R Derek Black, former up-and-coming Stormfront star, explaining his own turn against white nationalism and about white nationalist strategies: https://youtu.be/JFrvZGXSlKg and here is Natalie Wynn of Contrapoints with a plain language and useful guide to identifying white nationalist and fascist (identified by their policy goals in her video) messaging and strategies and why they are so corrosive and frustrating https://youtu.be/Sx4BVGPkdzk I apologize for the video format, but both can be listened to more like a podcast, the visuals aren't that important.
You're confusing the ideal (what we want, absent trade-offs, a question outside economics) with the *optimal* number. Ideal is the correct word, and zero is the correct number.
Fair enough! I suppose I consider the optimal number a much more interesting question, then (and it’s also critical to know which definition is being used.)
It's interesting as a concept, but focusing on it obscures the fact that the relevant trade offs aren't fixed, but socially continent in a given movement. The MB=MC calculation assumes away the important question (what values and norms could you adopt to make trade-offs lower) for the sake of a cute exercise. For example, insistence on agreeing on a single strict definition of racism will raise the cost of removing people for racism. That is more likely to be worth it for someone like Scott Alexander, less likely for folks on the left. But we're dealing with differences in values, not one movement finding the optimal number and the other being inefficient.
Good points that the tradeoffs aren’t fixed. But the dynamics are complex, as with any social dynamic.
For example, having a fuzzy definition might make it easier to expel racists — but it also makes it easier to expel non-racists as racists. I think the definition creep noted in Alexander’s post (and the resulting false allegations, going by traditional definitions) is a big part of why a larger part of the country is now comfortable with ignoring racism charges than they were 10 years ago.
In economics there is the idea that the ideal amount of crime is not zero -- it is instead where the marginal cost of deterring crime equals the marginal cost of crime. It’s not obvious why the same logic would not apply to thoughts we abhor the way we abhor crime.
There is also the difficult issue of defining “racism,” well-described here: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/06/21/against-murderism/
I don't think my reply last night was as constructive as it could be, so I reread the Scott Alexander piece quickly this morning and it's not helpful for a few reasons. First, the right *keeps finding Fionas*—the post isn't about quibbling over whether prominent folks on the right having a hard time with accents is a problem. Second and more importantly, once you have a problem with embedded honest-to-goodness white nationalists, they employ a deliberate strategy of multiplying and intensifying casual racism to move it towards more overt racism.
Organized white nationalists are also at least as guilty of equating examples of "racism by consequence" with more overt racism to excuse and normalize overt racism as is the left, who are the implied problem in Alexander's piece. We know that they do this from years of access to leaks from far-right organizations and deradicalized people who are trying to help us understand it, and knowing it, it's just useless at this point to employ an analysis that isn't taking into account the coded, underhanded strategies of organized overt racists. And they will explicitly denounce white nationalism and white nationalists (but will not abandon their coded work for white nationalism) if found out.
I realize that posts like Alexander's get a lot more play than posts that actually help navigate the strategies of organized, uncontroversial racists. So here is R Derek Black, former up-and-coming Stormfront star, explaining his own turn against white nationalism and about white nationalist strategies: https://youtu.be/JFrvZGXSlKg and here is Natalie Wynn of Contrapoints with a plain language and useful guide to identifying white nationalist and fascist (identified by their policy goals in her video) messaging and strategies and why they are so corrosive and frustrating https://youtu.be/Sx4BVGPkdzk I apologize for the video format, but both can be listened to more like a podcast, the visuals aren't that important.
I hope that's more helpful.
You're confusing the ideal (what we want, absent trade-offs, a question outside economics) with the *optimal* number. Ideal is the correct word, and zero is the correct number.
Fair enough! I suppose I consider the optimal number a much more interesting question, then (and it’s also critical to know which definition is being used.)
It's interesting as a concept, but focusing on it obscures the fact that the relevant trade offs aren't fixed, but socially continent in a given movement. The MB=MC calculation assumes away the important question (what values and norms could you adopt to make trade-offs lower) for the sake of a cute exercise. For example, insistence on agreeing on a single strict definition of racism will raise the cost of removing people for racism. That is more likely to be worth it for someone like Scott Alexander, less likely for folks on the left. But we're dealing with differences in values, not one movement finding the optimal number and the other being inefficient.
Good points that the tradeoffs aren’t fixed. But the dynamics are complex, as with any social dynamic.
For example, having a fuzzy definition might make it easier to expel racists — but it also makes it easier to expel non-racists as racists. I think the definition creep noted in Alexander’s post (and the resulting false allegations, going by traditional definitions) is a big part of why a larger part of the country is now comfortable with ignoring racism charges than they were 10 years ago.