I think the crux is what feeds the dangerous norms, and what makes norms dangerous. I expect that when considered in detail, Said or most others with similar behaviors aren’t intending or causing the kinds of damage you describe to an important extent. But at the same time, norms (especially insane ones) feed on first impressions, not on detailed analyses.
Such norms might gain real power and do major damage if they do take hold. I don’t believe they have, and so the damage you are describing is overstated, but the risk the norms represent is real. Said might be an unusually legible referent when doing a search for foundations of such unfortunate norms, but it’s not necessarily correct that he’s a meaningful contributing factor to the present extent to which these norms persist, and there isn’t necessarily a live dynamic where these norms are increasing their hold over time rather than remaining at some annoying and not completely harmless background level.
So this decision seems like a case of the most forbidden technique, where the effort gets directed to the most legible entity related to a problem, even as it remains unclear if there is a causal influence, or if the avoidable part of the problem is important in its current form. Once the more legible signs of the problem are gone, the problem becomes less salient, but it doesn’t necessarily go away (or improve at all) if it actually has many other causes. Vigilance fades, and if the problem does get worse (so that it becomes actually important to mitigate), it does so more silently, getting a better shot at becoming a catastrophe.
I think the crux is what feeds the dangerous norms, and what makes norms dangerous. I expect that when considered in detail, Said or most others with similar behaviors aren’t intending or causing the kinds of damage you describe to an important extent. But at the same time, norms (especially insane ones) feed on first impressions, not on detailed analyses.
Such norms might gain real power and do major damage if they do take hold. I don’t believe they have, and so the damage you are describing is overstated, but the risk the norms represent is real. Said might be an unusually legible referent when doing a search for foundations of such unfortunate norms, but it’s not necessarily correct that he’s a meaningful contributing factor to the present extent to which these norms persist, and there isn’t necessarily a live dynamic where these norms are increasing their hold over time rather than remaining at some annoying and not completely harmless background level.
So this decision seems like a case of the most forbidden technique, where the effort gets directed to the most legible entity related to a problem, even as it remains unclear if there is a causal influence, or if the avoidable part of the problem is important in its current form. Once the more legible signs of the problem are gone, the problem becomes less salient, but it doesn’t necessarily go away (or improve at all) if it actually has many other causes. Vigilance fades, and if the problem does get worse (so that it becomes actually important to mitigate), it does so more silently, getting a better shot at becoming a catastrophe.