As my twitter friend David Hines say, tactics used by the left are great until used against the left. Hopefully this doesn't result in the left rediscovering their commitment to "safe spaces".
"Speech Insurance" that covers legal fees and pays out for harms resulting from speaking ones mind would have very different premiums depending on which sides one would like to take on particular subjects. Free speech would mean the premiums would be generally low, but we are very far from that.
I'd be content with anyone advising people to speak more freely because the risks are lower than they fear, to put their money where their mouth is, and to add, "And I'm so sure that you won't get in trouble that, if you do, I'll be your legal defense fund and pay your lawyer's fees."
It's only vaguely related to this post, but "Tracing Woodgrains" just got his degree 4 years after claiming he could do it in 1, and reflects on Bryan's claims about the revealed preferences of the "mentally ill" (among others) here: https://tracingwoodgrains.substack.com/p/speedrunning-college-four-years-later
Is this assuming that you're someone with tenure? It's very hard to speak unpopular opinions when you're struggling to keep your job (or find a permanent position).
TBH even tenure doesn't matter on these things. I had Federal tenure, still got canned over a speech issue; what you need is tenure AND union membership.
Agree. If you want to have a job in 5 or 10 years, you have to think about it will be socially acceptable to say in 5 or 10 years, and assume those standards will be applied retroactively.
Of course, if we all take Bryan’s advice, it’s much more likely that standards will be better in 5 years than if we don’t, but there’s obviously a coordination problem; each individual is still probably better off being reticent about his controversial views.
I would posit that 99% of middle class and above people have jobs that if they stated whites had higher genetic IQs then blacks they would be fired immediately. Assuming they did it in their own name and it was well known enough.
Like imagine if Bob in Accounting said he wasn't going to engage in any AA hiring and there weren't enough qualified black applicants. And they said that the only reason there aren't any qualified black applicants is because we live in a racist society that keeps blacks down. And Bob said that he didn't think we lived in a racist society but that the lack of qualified recruits was due to genetics. Bob would be fired on the spot.
This is what happened to James Damore, and I would expect it to happen to anyone else that did what he did.
Basically any job at a large company I would expect this. You might be able to get away with it if you're a janitor or at a minimum get another janitor job if you did get fired. But if you have a real career I would expect it to be over.
There will always be some exceptions. A Charles Murray backed by a think tank. Someone that is independently wealthy. Etc. But they are the exceptions that prove the rule.
I think Bryan is just claiming that now is a relatively good time to take contrarian positions publically (which sounds correct to me), not that it's risk-free (which is obviously not true). Taking an unpopular position is never totally risk free, anyway, even in a very pro-free-speech environment.
I’ll upgrade to paid after that post. Bold move Bryan! Thanks!
That list reads like the contents of a Walter Block book.
The hypocrisy of our elite intellectual institutions is just shameless.
As my twitter friend David Hines say, tactics used by the left are great until used against the left. Hopefully this doesn't result in the left rediscovering their commitment to "safe spaces".
"Speech Insurance" that covers legal fees and pays out for harms resulting from speaking ones mind would have very different premiums depending on which sides one would like to take on particular subjects. Free speech would mean the premiums would be generally low, but we are very far from that.
A business providing such policies should exist, if only to serve as a gauge of free speech realities.
I'd be content with anyone advising people to speak more freely because the risks are lower than they fear, to put their money where their mouth is, and to add, "And I'm so sure that you won't get in trouble that, if you do, I'll be your legal defense fund and pay your lawyer's fees."
That’s a fair point as well.
Yes academics with any backbone need to have their own Elon Musk "Go F*** youselves moment.
Great "including but not limited to" list, by the way. https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/invasion-of-the-virtue-signallers
https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/how-diversity-narrows-the-mind
Which are the more "dangerous" topics to discuss and positions to take? Why? And whose particular ox is being gored by airing such views?
This excellent post may pertain to everyone except objectivists, whom a late acquaintance used to call objectionists. I'm okay with that. Thanks.
It's only vaguely related to this post, but "Tracing Woodgrains" just got his degree 4 years after claiming he could do it in 1, and reflects on Bryan's claims about the revealed preferences of the "mentally ill" (among others) here: https://tracingwoodgrains.substack.com/p/speedrunning-college-four-years-later
Is this assuming that you're someone with tenure? It's very hard to speak unpopular opinions when you're struggling to keep your job (or find a permanent position).
TBH even tenure doesn't matter on these things. I had Federal tenure, still got canned over a speech issue; what you need is tenure AND union membership.
Agree. If you want to have a job in 5 or 10 years, you have to think about it will be socially acceptable to say in 5 or 10 years, and assume those standards will be applied retroactively.
Of course, if we all take Bryan’s advice, it’s much more likely that standards will be better in 5 years than if we don’t, but there’s obviously a coordination problem; each individual is still probably better off being reticent about his controversial views.
I would posit that 99% of middle class and above people have jobs that if they stated whites had higher genetic IQs then blacks they would be fired immediately. Assuming they did it in their own name and it was well known enough.
Like imagine if Bob in Accounting said he wasn't going to engage in any AA hiring and there weren't enough qualified black applicants. And they said that the only reason there aren't any qualified black applicants is because we live in a racist society that keeps blacks down. And Bob said that he didn't think we lived in a racist society but that the lack of qualified recruits was due to genetics. Bob would be fired on the spot.
This is what happened to James Damore, and I would expect it to happen to anyone else that did what he did.
Basically any job at a large company I would expect this. You might be able to get away with it if you're a janitor or at a minimum get another janitor job if you did get fired. But if you have a real career I would expect it to be over.
There will always be some exceptions. A Charles Murray backed by a think tank. Someone that is independently wealthy. Etc. But they are the exceptions that prove the rule.
I think Bryan is just claiming that now is a relatively good time to take contrarian positions publically (which sounds correct to me), not that it's risk-free (which is obviously not true). Taking an unpopular position is never totally risk free, anyway, even in a very pro-free-speech environment.