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."
Is there an additional public-space/private space distinction to be made? For many speakers (and listeners, both direct and indirect), there might be an expectation that self-selected conversations in public may have different content than self-selected conversations in private. EDIT: You partly address this with the "get out of earshot" line, but getting out of earshot is different in a house or office than it is on a sidewalk or a social media platform post.
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.
Using government to shut down unwelcome thoughts goes back to the very first tribes, I imagine. The slavocracy in the US used the post office to censor abolitionist magazines and newspapers. The slave Congress Critters tried to ban even accepting abolitionist petitions but couldn't get past the First Amendment (Congress shall make no law ... to petition the Government for a redress of grievances), so they banned reading them out loud. John Quincy Adams got around that by asking for judgment on whether a petition could be read aloud, and of course had to read it aloud to ask.
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."
Is there an additional public-space/private space distinction to be made? For many speakers (and listeners, both direct and indirect), there might be an expectation that self-selected conversations in public may have different content than self-selected conversations in private. EDIT: You partly address this with the "get out of earshot" line, but getting out of earshot is different in a house or office than it is on a sidewalk or a social media platform post.
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.
Using government to shut down unwelcome thoughts goes back to the very first tribes, I imagine. The slavocracy in the US used the post office to censor abolitionist magazines and newspapers. The slave Congress Critters tried to ban even accepting abolitionist petitions but couldn't get past the First Amendment (Congress shall make no law ... to petition the Government for a redress of grievances), so they banned reading them out loud. John Quincy Adams got around that by asking for judgment on whether a petition could be read aloud, and of course had to read it aloud to ask.
IMO you are both correct.
In the America where people aged 30 - 90 grew up, Michael is surely generally correct.
In many / most other places and times, you are.
In the context of this conversation what does “self-selected” mean?
"Almost" certainly? Couldn't quite face it!
How would you render a commercial or service interaction?
DMV visit, Starbucks, grocery?
A lot of negative stuff is expressed and suppressed there on both sides.
Wonderful advice. Impeccably argued.