Ask Me Again After Dinner
Kids say the darndest things — and ask the darndest questions. Especially when they were 8-12 years old, my kids would often bring up sensitive topics at dinner. Sexy topics. Disgusting topics. Sexy, disgusting topics. Though I was proud of their unconventional curiosity, I didn’t want to ruin dinner for the whole family.
Before long, I came up with a simple response to defuse such situations: “Ask me again after dinner.” A response that simultaneously expresses two distinct positions:
First, it’s a fine question to ask, and I’m happy to discuss it with you in detail before bedtime.
Second, it’s a bad question to ask right now, so let’s change the subject so everyone has a nice dinner.
This protocol has always worked like a charm. I’ve proven to my kids over and over that “You can ask me anything” is not a pretty lie, but a beautiful truth. But I’ve also spared more old-fashioned and easily disgusted family members a lot of fruitless pain. I don’t want to talk about topics that listeners don’t want to hear.
Recently, Robin Hanson was asking me about norms against discussing sensitive topics, such as “How many grown men are attracted to 17-year-old girls?” My response: We should just generalize “Ask me again after dinner.”
Specifically:
If the listeners are not self-selected, and the topic is likely to upset some of them, then postpone the sensitive conversation and make it “opt-in.”
What kinds of conversations don’t count as “self-selected”? Purely social gatherings like family meals, activities with partners and families, and work meetings.
What kinds of conversations do count as “self-selected”? Books, articles, public speeches, podcasts, videos, social media, and any conversation where you make an effort to get out of earshot. In all of these cases, the slogan: “If you don’t like it, don’t tune in” applies.
In sum: If the conversation is not self-selected, the onus is on speakers to avoid giving offense. But as long as the conversation is self-selected, the onus is on listeners to avoid taking offense.
In practice, this gives a carte blanche for 95% of sensitive discussions. Which is a feature, not a bug. If you treat X (the social media platform, not the variable) like a giant family dinner, it would be virtually impossible to say anything more controversial than “Please pass the potatoes.” Someone’s grandma is always listening, and you shouldn’t upset grandma, right?
Even if X didn’t allow easy curation, there’s a chasm between “If you don’t like our conversation, find a new family,” and “If you don’t like our conversation, find a new website.” And since X, like almost all social media, gives you endless ways to opt-in and opt-out of unwanted conversations, the chasm is truly vast. Instead of complaining about norm violations, gracefully exit aversive spaces and build a beautiful bubble for yourself.
But isn’t society basically one big family having one big non-stop meal together? This is an oppressive model even within a nuclear family. For a whole society, it is the essence of totalitarianism. Every society is a society of strangers, and you shouldn’t want it any other way.
If that idea offends you, you are definitely in the wrong corner of the internet…
A very reasonable approach and, dare I say, one that has very strong traditions. It has only recently been the case that people actually want to shut speech down (e.g. universities). Traditionally, students have gathered where they want to hear a speaker and don't gather where they don't. If only more people adopted this reasonable approach.
You write: Recently, Robin Hanson was asking me about norms against discussing sensitive topics, such as “How many grown men are attracted to 17-year-old girls?” My response: We should just generalize “Ask me again after dinner.”
I think I completely misunderstand. I take this to mean: People SHOULDN’T post about men’s attraction to young women on Substack. I agree, it’s unseemly, I don’t need to read about that. “They’re probably creepy and I don’t want to see it.” I don’t need to ban it, but I don’t have to think it belongs on a particular social media platform. Do we agree?
(I asked Grok to answer as Caplan*) Groklan: In every non-captive setting (your own blog, a podcast, an X thread you started, a private DM, a side room at a conference, etc.), you are allowed to bring it up without violating any deep moral norm. People who don’t want to engage can and should just scroll past, mute, block, or close the tab. That is their “after dinner.”
MY “after dinner” is: “not where I’m reading.” I scroll past the tweet, and I say "I wish that guy would take it elsewhere." There are SOME norms of expected communication on social media. If you want to be like that... Just by being in public there are things you shouldn't do. It's not a deep moral norm to say, "not here, dude, please."
(A thread ensued with me imagining things that Caplan could post that I would legitimately feel do not belong on various Social Media platforms.) Groklan: To him, saying “take it elsewhere” in a space where “elsewhere” is literally one click away is like telling someone on the street “please take your ugly lime-green suit elsewhere.” You’re allowed to think it’s ugly, you’re allowed to say it out loud, but you do not get to demand they change or leave the sidewalk just because you find it unseemly. The only remaining legitimate etiquette is individual, silent, frictionless avoidance. So no, on the specific reaction “I wish that guy would take it elsewhere” / “Not here, dude” — you and Caplan do not agree.
For Groklan talking about young girls, talking poopy, and wearing a lime green suit are all akin? I don’t know whether Caplan holds these views. But, Groklan can post whatever it wants on social media, fine. Still if certain contents appears on Substack, I'm going to feel like Groklan should take it to OnlyFans.
*My first request that Grok explain the post resulted in: "Caplan's core argument is that physical hunger demonstrably warps judgment, so we should routinely delay important decisions until after eating to improve outcomes in personal, familial, and societal contexts."