This stuff is just a cold religious war, between the believers and non-believers. The sooner we recognize it as such, and properly cap the blast radius as we have with prior religious differences, the better. Until then this category error will plague us all.<p><a href="https://newdiscourses.com/2020/09/first-amendment-case-freedom-from-woke-religion/" rel="nofollow">https://newdiscourses.com/2020/09/first-amendment-case-freed...</a>
The only reference to this I can find: <a href="https://twitter.com/pmddomingos/status/1344028996850180097" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/pmddomingos/status/1344028996850180097</a><p>Notably, Pedro Domingos recently fought against NeurIPS' ethics/social impact requirement in research papers. The argument here is likely related, that science be portrayed in a vacuum and not be diminished based on possible societal harm or political biases.
Important context: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25419844" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25419844</a><p>The author of the blacklist retracted the list and apologized.
I wonder if the only way to meaningfully oppose cancel culture is actively cancel the proponents. It's hard to fight a movement that's willing to go to such extremes while holding on to ideals which restrict your own response.
I feel confused about this whole issue. People are acting like "cancelling" someone is a new thing, but this is something I saw happen all the time in academia. It just used to be the purview of small cliques of powerful professors who had chokeholds on particular fields. Immunology is particularly bad. Say something bad about professor X's proposal? You're never getting a grant funded again. Professor Y harassed you when you were a grad student and you're upset? Best get out of the field and don't make a fuss.<p>What's different now other than larger groups with nontraditional forms of power are trying to impose consequences in return?
As some was who was recently #canceled I gotta say stuff like this does nothing. Rallying against "cancel culture" is as pointless as waging a war on drugs. There is no such thing as a "culture" of cancelling; it's just a reaction people have, justified or not. People who rally against "cancel culture" seem to just be rallying against vaguely progressive beliefs they disagree with.<p>From the comments in this thread it seems the context is that the ACM started requiring an ethics section on papers. Hardly has anything to do with cancelling itself if you ask me.
What is the purpose of a document like this one?<p>Seems to me that nothing constructive can be accomplished without giving much more context and specific examples to discuss, while this open letter contains nothing substantial like that.
Hmmm. I'm not sure how successful this can be since the 3rd principle about not discriminating on identity etc (though righteous) is often that used to suppress research in the past.<p>Without some Asimovian style "except where that counters the 1st principle" appended to "lower" principles it will continue to be abused by those who would constrain science that offends them.
It's easy to distill this down to religious wars but I think that distillation ignores popular bad behavior that creates these problems in the first place.<p>Anyone who engages in shaming, suppression, bregading/harassment/abuse is arguably not looking for discourse. In modern politics there are entire camps of people, even pre-Trumpism, who think discourse is dead primarily because they feel galvanized by the emotionality of their views. This concept has always existed but has grown quite a bit in popularity in recent years and has begun to underpin mainstream issues in science, politics, society, and more. The irony is that people will like and despise these things simultaneously, which is why I believe it's derivative of galvanization.<p>The fact that science is caught up in this, where discourse is at the heart of the process, tells me some group or some thing is instigating this co-opting. I hope we begin to reject these practices and accept them for the low effort anti-democratic efforts that they are.
Many industries are having the "and then they came for me"[1] moment, but it is particularly pronounced in academia. Intellectual giants such as Steven Pinker are attacked regularly by fellow academics on the basis of not conforming. People such as the group here must take a stand to stop this behavior.<p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_</a>..
I'm not sure what prompted this in the first place.Had the ACM done anything that was perceived as wrong?<p>In my view, the letter seems to be a contradictory admixture of Progressivism and Rationalism.<p>> Such actions have included calls for academic boycotts, attempts to get people fired, inviting mob attacks against ‘offending’ individuals<p>That's a Rationalist perspective, which I endorse. And, as a "rationalist", it's been my observation that it's the progressive that indulge in this kind of behaviour. The so-called "cancel culture".<p>> Scientific work should be judged on the basis of scientific merit<p>Sure, but obvious comment is obvious. Why bring it up?<p>> No individual should suffer harassment or attack based on their personal or political views, religion, nationality, race, gender, or sexual orientation.<p>Oh, here we go. The statement, whilst logical and indisputable enough in its expression, betrays a pushing of a Progressive agenda.<p>> Scientific discourse should be based on mutual respect<p>Sure dude, whatever. Do you really need to write that in a letter? And why the ACM in particular?<p>> In short, challenging and debating ideas is always acceptable and ought to be encouraged.<p>Imagine going up to Isaac Newton and saying this. I imagine he'd give you a puzzled look as if you were slightly backwards.<p>Are the signatories rationalists, or progressives? It's difficult to tell. My suspicion is that although it is rationalist on its surface, it is covertly progressive.<p>Progressivism: always pushing an agenda covertly, never speaking in plain words.<p>That's my take, anyway. I don't have much karma to burn.
Can’t read it. Opened on my phone and there are at lost 7 letters per line - communications is split over 3 lines for example.<p>Rather ironic that a letter to a group that is about communication can’t use an appropriate technology to communicate.
<a href="https://twitter.com/sanitarypanels/status/1343865692051816448" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/sanitarypanels/status/134386569205181644...</a><p>person A: "I want to commit genocide against Muslims"<p>person B: "You are fascist scum"<p>person C: "Woah woah, let's not resort to name calling, let's calmly discuss the pros and cons of genocide".
One of the signers, Aryeh Konterovich is associated with a right wing Israeli NGO that conducted witch hunts against Israeli professors and artists who were deemed too leftist by its crooked standards. This was a massive well funded campaign on facebook and traditional media singling out these people as traitors.
It's extremely ironic he is now taking this anti cancel stance. Oh the hypocrisy.<p>He is also promoting a constitutional law in israel that will say jews have more rights than non jewish CITIZENS of israel.
Google Docs on iOS Safari is unreadable garbage. Here's what this post looks like on my phone. I wish I could hide docs.google.com links from HN.<p><a href="https://i.imgur.com/7cuifN3.png" rel="nofollow">https://i.imgur.com/7cuifN3.png</a>
As I've said before, at what point can we just have an old-fashioned fight without throwing this snowflakey "cancel culture" criticism at it?<p>I'm a strong advocate for free speech. The only way that free speech works is that people feel free to vociferously disagree. Given the volume of, say, Domingos' tweets, he certainly feels free to disagree. At this point the same can be said of Gebru and Anandkumar. Great! What's the problem here? Can't we just all just argue and get along?<p>Where is the mob attack? Oh, someone said someone mean to you. For heaven's sake, if Anita Sarkeesian can take it then the rest of you sure can. If no one here is upset about public health directors in Kansas having their children threatened, then why the dustup about some feelings on Twitter?<p>Great, someone puts you on a block list on Twitter. Congrats. Until you've gotten your first rape threat you haven't really made it anyways. What a bunch of whiners.