= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
shminux comments on Open thread, Dec. 8 - Dec. 15, 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (289)
Making the news today is MIT taking down all Walter Lewin videos (most now, some at the end of the term) as a result of their investigation into sexual harassment allegations. This seems like a gross and unprecedented overreaction (a rough equivalent of removing all Bill Cosby videos), so I would estimate that this decision will be partially or fully reversed within 1 year, with probability of 75%.
Noooooooooooooo!!!!
I don't care if Walter Lewin is actually Stalin in disguise, those videos are awesome.
Does, um, anybody know if someone is linking to a backup somewhere (cough)gwern(cough)?
You can watch them on Youtube, e.g on this channel. If you would like to have a backup copy on your own computer, you can download them using, e.g. this Firefox addon.
oh, they are online various places elsewhere, since the license allows copying.
In our ridiculous societal climate, if you're not the chief inquisitor you'll be the target of the next shitstorm yourself, #MIThateswomen. You're mostly getting punished for underreacting, so you err on the side of overreacting.
If you can't beat'em, join'em. If they are crazy, the best way to be safe is to (pretend to) lead them (unless you can avoid them, which wasn't an option).
Welcome to the brave new world. Blood and games, keeps us busy from dealing with the issues that matter.
Historically speaking, not the best way. Once the ranks of external enemies thin or move out of reach, rabid movements start destroying their own.
You hope the roving ire of the storm front has moved on until then. (xpost /r/meteorology)
There are plenty of historical examples in which monarchs sought to defuse revolutionary pressure by "joining" some of the more moderate factions, it's one of the two typical responses (placate them versus fight them). The demise of monarchy shouldn't be taken to mean that they weren't occasionally successful, see for example Victoria of England, or the German "revolution" of 1848/49. (Disclaimer: Not claiming expertise, also not a NRx-disciple.)
ETA: Also, your argument seems to be "eventually the movement will turn on itself (see the French Revolution "devouring its children") once it runs out of external enemies", which is a general argument against joining such movements. However, the question is whether you're "allowed" to stay neutral and wait until the whole thing blows over. Typically, such isn't an option. Instead the alternatives often come down to "get beaten by them"/"become one of them". In which case the latter is preferable to the former.
Typically, such is. We are not talking about acceptance or even necessary obeisance -- you said the best way is to "lead them". This means much more than just proclaiming "Yes, witches are bad, I don't like them, too". This means grabbing the torch and the pitchfork and shouting "After me, lads! I know some witches that need burning!".
Take a pretty extreme case -- Stalin's Russia. You had no choice about demonstrating loyalty and singing the praises of communism and Stalin personally. But you did have a choice about joining the secret police and "leading" the hunt for the insufficiently enthusiastic.
Joining the secret police would probably render you safer (note the comparative) from being their target than trying to be an accepting bystander. The 'best way to be safe', i.e. 'the safest way', not the only potentially safe way.
Finding the least amount of cooperation you can "get away with" sets you up for being identified as a target. The worst case comes from underreacting, or from trying to find some middle ground which could be perceived as underreacting. Back to the MIT case, "leading" in the sense of "look, we 'sacked' the guy (in his emeritus activities) and destroyed his legacy even before anyone could even ask us for our reaction!". Leading in the literal sense: being the forerunner, not a follower, showing a preemptive radical reaction to signal "see, we're one of us, we're leading the wave of punishing the evil professor". "(Pretend to)" since clearly everyone involved there would like nothing more than the whole thing to go away, and to go back to business as usual once they've collectively passed the "we're the most progressive/feminist/buzzword institution ever, see we even cut off our own hand! (figuratively)" test.
I do maintain the "typically, such isn't an option", since it referred to "stay neutral and wait until the whole things blows over". I wouldn't say "acceptance or even necessary obeisance" falls under that description, that would be along the lines of "join them". Which can mean you're safe. It's just not the safest way, which is joining the secret police equivalent.
The "Gerstein Report" makes for fascinating reading, an SS scientist who purportedly sabotaged a lot of the gas production, was suspected of being a dissenter at various points, but always got away through being of high rank in the very organisation everyone was so fearful of.
Under Stalin party members weren't very safe. For Stalin is was more important to kill members of the party that might not be according to his standards than it was to kill random people without any political power. It was quite easy to pick the wrong side in inner party battles.
Good point.
Stalin's purges around 1937 show otherwise.
That depends -- first, I'm arguing for the "hide in crowds" tactics, not for the least possible amount that doesn't get you shot immediately, and second, you are assuming the "nowhere to hide" scenario. Since we are speaking about SJWs and such, some people and organizations are forced to declare their positions, but a lot are not.
But right in the parent post you talk about the necessity of "being the forerunner, not a follower, showing a preemptive radical reaction to signal". I continue to think that passive acceptance and active participation are very different things.
Certainly if you can thoroughly evade the spotlight that's a good alternative and one most of us are taking right now, as we speak. Such situations do exist historically as well, no doubt, you mentioned one.
I didn't mean to overly generalize in the first comment, as you say I was assuming a "nowhere to hide" scenario because in this particular case (and similar cases these days) that's what it was: the Twitter spotlight (the modern Eye of Sauron) was about to shine upon them, and they needed to frame their role thus that it reflects a positive light. Like meeting drunk soccer fans in an alley, you gotta declare yourself to be a friend of their club, if they friend/foe query you.
Generally/Typically I do think that it is the easiest way (note the superlative, "the safest way") to evade prosecution when you're one of the prosecutors yourself. But of course that's hard to quantify, let alone when the domain spans across human history.
I didn't mean to say that typically there are no alternatives which could also keep you safe, or that the safest way is always to join the most radical part of the winning faction. But even if you're including a margin a safety in that "least possible amount", that still puts you closer to the crazy's bad side than being one of their bannermen. If they can target e.g. Richard Dawkins / UVA / Lewin they can target anyone.
Which is why, of course, ahem, I wholeheartedly support the crazies. If they asked ...
The problem is that they commonly ask for corpses of infidels as proof of your sincerity.
If it comes down to it, better their corpses than my own. Since I'm in this body, and not some other one.
Recorded on Prediction Book here.
Richard Feynman may have been a creep-and-a-half, but it would be a shame to stop publishing the Feynman Lectures on Physics on that regard.
(That said, Richard Feynman is dead and therefore cannot sexually harass any of his current readers.)
A similar argument could be made that a pre-recorded lecture cannot sexually harass someone either (barring of course very creative uses of the video lecture format which we probably would have heard about by now :P ).
From the MIT press release, it sounds as if the former professor emeritus¹ has been harassing online students through means other than pre-recorded videos.
¹ Would that be a professor demeritus?
The key question is whether this action increases or reduces the amount of people that watch the lectures. Has anybody any guesses?
I don't think it's the key question if you evaluate the ethics of the MIT administration, as opposed to the consequences for Lewin's lessons' popularity.
Getting a bunch of people who otherwise wouldn't watch physics lectures to watch them because they are "banned" might be a high utillity act.
I mean what more can they do to make physics exicting?
It's like you didn't read my reply...
As far as I understand some form of consequentialism is the default ethical system on LW.
If the action has positive consequences, why should it be unethical?
I don't think (even) in consequentialism you include unforeseeable consequences into the ethical assessment of an agent. If someone plans to kill their neighbor but instead their polonium-laden coffee turned the neighbor into spider-man, they are still just as immoral, even if the act itself can be retroactively deemed good. You might even hail the agent for helping save the human race from the evil Doctor Octopus, but you certainly would not want to be their neighbor, no matter how consequentialist you are.
The streisand effect is not a unforeseeable consequence.
True, but then if it was foreseen and used intentionally to bolster Lewin's viewership, then the ethics of the administration is even more questionable. Also, it feels like you are now arguing for the sake of arguing.
I don't think it makes sense to do things for a single reason. It's better to look at the likely effects of a decision and then decide whether or not you want to go the road that leads there.
It's still punishment for Lewin to stop hosting his videos. It's likely perceived by Lewin that way. It's perceived by the media as a symbol for it. All the social justice people feel good because of the symbolic act. It still puts the video outside of MIT.
Rule 34, of course. It's all physics, dontcha know? :-D
The professor probably has hidden all sort of sexual suggestions in his lectures that MIT doesn't want to be associated with.
Scott Aarasson writes that "Prof. Lewin tells the students that they’re about to lose their “Maxwell’s equations virginity.”" The old professor toyed the line of what can be said in todays world of politcal correctness.
That pitch might just work to get people interested.
It's MIT - they have lots of compelling lecturers. Far more likely one of them will be tasked with producing a replacement series long before then. Actually, that's probably already in motion.
Lewin spent 25 years recording lectures. That's a quarter century working on them after he was singled out as the guy to do it, some combination of already being a good lecturer and willing to put in the work. And, no, MIT does not have a lot of compelling lecturers -- the teaching prize is known as the "Kiss of Death Award."