Thanks for the extensive comment. I’m not sure it’s productive to debate this much on the object level. The main thing I want to highlight is that this is a very good example of how the taboo that I discussed above operates.
On most issues, people (and especially LWers) are generally open to thinking about the benefits and costs of each stance, since tradeoffs are real.
However, in the case of ethnonationalism, even discussing the taboo on it (without explicitly advocating for it) was enough to trigger a kind of zero-tolerance attitude in your comment.
This is all the more striking because the main historical opponent of ethnonationalist regimes was globalist communism, which also led to large-scale atrocities. Yet when people defend a “socialist” or “egalitarian” cluster of ideas, that doesn’t lead to anywhere near this level of visceral response.
My main bid here is for readers to notice that there is a striking asymmetry in how we think about and discuss 20th century history, which is best explained via the thing I hypothesized above: a strong taboo on ethnonationalism in the wake of WW2, which has then distorted our ability to think about many other issues.
I could imagine a world where discussing it is not something I would see as critically unwelcome, but I would still want to maintain part of the mechanism that implements the taboo, which is why I made the comments I did: being able to come to agreement that there are outcomes which are good and bad, such as the previous famous outcomes of ethnonationalism. I suspect that I’ve interpreted you to be saying that those previous outcomes were bad (“While perhaps at first this taboo was valuable”) but it’s not as reliable as the taboo implementation I carry would prefer.
If your view is that virtues are required to be independent of outcomes, in that eg a virtue whose adoption would predictably lead to mass death [edit to finish phrase: would still be a virtue if virtuous by its own merits], then I don’t think they can be truly called virtuous; but if your view is that we can discuss some features of outcomes that make an outcome good or bad, then I would want to discuss what virtues can lead us towards better outcomes by that standard. virtue utilitarianism, if you will, rather than rule utilitarianism[1]; the way I heard virtues described was that a virtue is a local aspiration, a non-totalizing learning process. If there are true things underneath these taboos, and those taboos were preventing those true things from being used to produce outcomes I find abhorrent, then if we are to remove the taboo, I wish to first discuss how we will maintain avoidance of those outcomes I see as bad.
At the same time, I recognize that some taboos that one might imagine were also protecting against bad things have already slipped, and so I would also suggest that we discuss this same thing about those topics.
For example, I think that an outcome I prefer is that people have freedom of association, that the groups be able to mingle non-destructively to a significant degree. A “friendly, non-destructive ethnonationalism” that is prosocial towards nearby ethnonational groups is something I could imagine being a worthy success, though it would strike me as odd, and I would hope it would not be the only kind of state that exists, because I would find it boring.
Also, I would find it odd if ethnonationalism is the only kind of nationalism worth considering, under the assumption that we’re seeking things that can be terminally-valued by a median progressive human.
I doubt that, by default, nationalism is less destructive than it was in the past. And so if we are to remove this taboo, I’d want to establish a way to enter into agreement with a person who will potentially discuss it that we agree on a particular value; not all values, not on everything. but a step towards fusing into a single agent within the particular topic of “do we want the outcomes that were previously the result of nationalism”. Because I don’t think we do, and I hope you also do not; and yet, it may very well be that the standard way of coming to agreement on this topic in current progressive society is one that prevents understanding necessary to achieve avoidance of the outcomes of other bad societal structures, such as a fully centralized command system[2] or a supercritical group[3].
I currently doubt that ethno- or national- are the grouping types that work best, and if you would like to convince me, I would want to understand what “best” is to you. If you will not, then I will be hesitant to further participate in reducing the taboo.
Re: why so much disagreement: because I think you’re trying to remove a taboo that should be there, and so far my impression is that when pressed to explain why it would be good to remove, you retreat to “well, it’s different from other levels of taboo”. My first instinct on realizing that is an obviously-irrational urge to taboo those as well—I don’t think that’s an effective move, so I wrote this comment instead.
@testingthewaters I think you’re jumping to conclusions a bit too quickly about what Richard thinks. Your interpretation is not clearly forbidden but jumping to conclusions in the way you do seems to me to be an error that prevents us from seeking outcomes that I would see as good, because you’re risking overclassifying people as malicious. I don’t think you’d need to do many more rounds of interaction before concluding you’ve identified what you see as malice, in order for the increased carefulness to increase your ability to cooperate with people you don’t fully agree with on important topics.
as you can see, I’m nowhere near being convinced to let go of “outer utilitarianism”, but could easily be convinced to accept “inner virtue ethicism” [edit: since writing this I’ve remembered that you didn’t, as of last discussion, object to processes that compare and rate according to preference, just that those processes may not fit into the type signature of utility functions]
I currently believe this is primarily seen in online discussions and in-person mobs, and I think what testingthewaters was saying feels to me like an instance of attempted irrational superreplicator instantiation, due to not first discussing whether the behavior testingthewaters demands—tabooing the topic—would be according to what you wish to be. However, the pattern you identified as mob dynamics in your talk isn’t obviously the same thing.
It seems to me that Richard isn’t trying to bring back ethnonationalism, or even trying to “add just that touch of ethnic pride back into the meme pool”, but just trying to diagnose “how the western world got so dysfunctional”. If ethnonationalism and the taboo against ethnonationalism are both bad (as an ethnic minority I’m personally pretty scared of the former), then maybe we should get rid of the taboo and defend against ethnonationalism by other means, similar how there is little to no taboo against communism[1] but it hasn’t come close to taking power or reapproaching its historical high water mark in the west.
If you doubt this, there’s an advisor to my local school district who is a self-avowed Marxist and professor of education at the state university, and writes book reviews like this one: «For decades the educational Left and critical pedagogues have run away from Marxism, socialism, and communism, all too often based on faulty understandings and falling prey to the deep-seated anti-communism in the academy. In History and Education Curry Stephenson Malott pushes back against this trend by offering us deeply Marxist thinking about the circulation of capital, socialist states, the connectivity of Marxist anti-capitalism, and a politics of race and education. In the process Malott points toward the role of education in challenging us all to become abolitionists of global capitalism.» (Wayne Au, Associate Professor in the School of Educational Studies at the University of Washington Bothell; Editor of the social justice teaching magazine Rethinking Schools; Co-editor of Mapping Corporate Education Reform: Power and Policies Networks in the Neoliberal State)
For the sake of transparency, while in this post I’m mostly trying to identify a diagnosis, in the longer term I expect to try to do political advocacy as well. And it’s reasonable to expect that people like me who are willing to break the taboo for the purposes of diagnosis will be more sympathetic to ethnonationalism in their advocacy than people who aren’t. For example, I’ve previously argued on twitter that South Africa should have split into two roughly-ethnonationalist states in the 90s, instead of doing what they actually did.
However, I expect that the best ways of fixing western countries won’t involve very much ethnonationalism by historical standards, because it’s a very blunt tool. Also, I suspect that breaking the taboo now will actually lead to less ethnonationalism in the long term. For example, even a little bit more ethnonationalism would plausibly have made European immigration policies much less insane over the last few decades, which would then have prevented a lot of the political polarization we’re seeing today.
in the longer term I expect to try to do political advocacy as well
I find this idea particularly fraught. I already find it somewhat difficult to engage on this site due to the contentious theories some members hold, and I echo testingthewater’s warning against the trap of reopening these old controversies. You’re trying to thread a really fine needle between “meaningfully advocate change” and “open all possible debates” that I don’t think is feasible.
The site is currently watching a major push from Yudkowsky and Soares’ book launch towards a broad coalition for an AI pause. It really only takes a couple major incidents of connecting the idea to ethnonationalism, scientific racism and/or dictatorship for the targets of your advocacy to turn away.
I’m not going to suggest you stay on-message (lw is way too “truth-seeking” for that to reach anyone), but you should carefully consider the ways in which your future goals conflict.
Thanks for the extensive comment. I’m not sure it’s productive to debate this much on the object level. The main thing I want to highlight is that this is a very good example of how the taboo that I discussed above operates.
On most issues, people (and especially LWers) are generally open to thinking about the benefits and costs of each stance, since tradeoffs are real.
However, in the case of ethnonationalism, even discussing the taboo on it (without explicitly advocating for it) was enough to trigger a kind of zero-tolerance attitude in your comment.
This is all the more striking because the main historical opponent of ethnonationalist regimes was globalist communism, which also led to large-scale atrocities. Yet when people defend a “socialist” or “egalitarian” cluster of ideas, that doesn’t lead to anywhere near this level of visceral response.
My main bid here is for readers to notice that there is a striking asymmetry in how we think about and discuss 20th century history, which is best explained via the thing I hypothesized above: a strong taboo on ethnonationalism in the wake of WW2, which has then distorted our ability to think about many other issues.
I could imagine a world where discussing it is not something I would see as critically unwelcome, but I would still want to maintain part of the mechanism that implements the taboo, which is why I made the comments I did: being able to come to agreement that there are outcomes which are good and bad, such as the previous famous outcomes of ethnonationalism. I suspect that I’ve interpreted you to be saying that those previous outcomes were bad (“While perhaps at first this taboo was valuable”) but it’s not as reliable as the taboo implementation I carry would prefer.
If your view is that virtues are required to be independent of outcomes, in that eg a virtue whose adoption would predictably lead to mass death [edit to finish phrase: would still be a virtue if virtuous by its own merits], then I don’t think they can be truly called virtuous; but if your view is that we can discuss some features of outcomes that make an outcome good or bad, then I would want to discuss what virtues can lead us towards better outcomes by that standard. virtue utilitarianism, if you will, rather than rule utilitarianism[1]; the way I heard virtues described was that a virtue is a local aspiration, a non-totalizing learning process. If there are true things underneath these taboos, and those taboos were preventing those true things from being used to produce outcomes I find abhorrent, then if we are to remove the taboo, I wish to first discuss how we will maintain avoidance of those outcomes I see as bad.
At the same time, I recognize that some taboos that one might imagine were also protecting against bad things have already slipped, and so I would also suggest that we discuss this same thing about those topics.
For example, I think that an outcome I prefer is that people have freedom of association, that the groups be able to mingle non-destructively to a significant degree. A “friendly, non-destructive ethnonationalism” that is prosocial towards nearby ethnonational groups is something I could imagine being a worthy success, though it would strike me as odd, and I would hope it would not be the only kind of state that exists, because I would find it boring.
Also, I would find it odd if ethnonationalism is the only kind of nationalism worth considering, under the assumption that we’re seeking things that can be terminally-valued by a median progressive human.
I doubt that, by default, nationalism is less destructive than it was in the past. And so if we are to remove this taboo, I’d want to establish a way to enter into agreement with a person who will potentially discuss it that we agree on a particular value; not all values, not on everything. but a step towards fusing into a single agent within the particular topic of “do we want the outcomes that were previously the result of nationalism”. Because I don’t think we do, and I hope you also do not; and yet, it may very well be that the standard way of coming to agreement on this topic in current progressive society is one that prevents understanding necessary to achieve avoidance of the outcomes of other bad societal structures, such as a fully centralized command system[2] or a supercritical group[3].
I currently doubt that ethno- or national- are the grouping types that work best, and if you would like to convince me, I would want to understand what “best” is to you. If you will not, then I will be hesitant to further participate in reducing the taboo.
Re: why so much disagreement: because I think you’re trying to remove a taboo that should be there, and so far my impression is that when pressed to explain why it would be good to remove, you retreat to “well, it’s different from other levels of taboo”. My first instinct on realizing that is an obviously-irrational urge to taboo those as well—I don’t think that’s an effective move, so I wrote this comment instead.
@testingthewaters I think you’re jumping to conclusions a bit too quickly about what Richard thinks. Your interpretation is not clearly forbidden but jumping to conclusions in the way you do seems to me to be an error that prevents us from seeking outcomes that I would see as good, because you’re risking overclassifying people as malicious. I don’t think you’d need to do many more rounds of interaction before concluding you’ve identified what you see as malice, in order for the increased carefulness to increase your ability to cooperate with people you don’t fully agree with on important topics.
as you can see, I’m nowhere near being convinced to let go of “outer utilitarianism”, but could easily be convinced to accept “inner virtue ethicism” [edit: since writing this I’ve remembered that you didn’t, as of last discussion, object to processes that compare and rate according to preference, just that those processes may not fit into the type signature of utility functions]
authoritarianism, seen in both ethnonationalist and communist states in recent history
I currently believe this is primarily seen in online discussions and in-person mobs, and I think what testingthewaters was saying feels to me like an instance of attempted irrational superreplicator instantiation, due to not first discussing whether the behavior testingthewaters demands—tabooing the topic—would be according to what you wish to be. However, the pattern you identified as mob dynamics in your talk isn’t obviously the same thing.
This is a thoughtful comment, I appreciate it, and I’ll reply when I have more time (hopefully in a few days).
If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
Jean-Paul Sartre
I sincerely believe that people will get hurt if these ideas return to society at large, Richard. Please don’t do this.
It seems to me that Richard isn’t trying to bring back ethnonationalism, or even trying to “add just that touch of ethnic pride back into the meme pool”, but just trying to diagnose “how the western world got so dysfunctional”. If ethnonationalism and the taboo against ethnonationalism are both bad (as an ethnic minority I’m personally pretty scared of the former), then maybe we should get rid of the taboo and defend against ethnonationalism by other means, similar how there is little to no taboo against communism[1] but it hasn’t come close to taking power or reapproaching its historical high water mark in the west.
If you doubt this, there’s an advisor to my local school district who is a self-avowed Marxist and professor of education at the state university, and writes book reviews like this one:
«For decades the educational Left and critical pedagogues have run away from Marxism, socialism, and communism, all too often based on faulty understandings and falling prey to the deep-seated anti-communism in the academy. In History and Education Curry Stephenson Malott pushes back against this trend by offering us deeply Marxist thinking about the circulation of capital, socialist states, the connectivity of Marxist anti-capitalism, and a politics of race and education. In the process Malott points toward the role of education in challenging us all to become abolitionists of global capitalism.» (Wayne Au, Associate Professor in the School of Educational Studies at the University of Washington Bothell; Editor of the social justice teaching magazine Rethinking Schools; Co-editor of Mapping Corporate Education Reform: Power and Policies Networks in the Neoliberal State)
I like this comment.
For the sake of transparency, while in this post I’m mostly trying to identify a diagnosis, in the longer term I expect to try to do political advocacy as well. And it’s reasonable to expect that people like me who are willing to break the taboo for the purposes of diagnosis will be more sympathetic to ethnonationalism in their advocacy than people who aren’t. For example, I’ve previously argued on twitter that South Africa should have split into two roughly-ethnonationalist states in the 90s, instead of doing what they actually did.
However, I expect that the best ways of fixing western countries won’t involve very much ethnonationalism by historical standards, because it’s a very blunt tool. Also, I suspect that breaking the taboo now will actually lead to less ethnonationalism in the long term. For example, even a little bit more ethnonationalism would plausibly have made European immigration policies much less insane over the last few decades, which would then have prevented a lot of the political polarization we’re seeing today.
I find this idea particularly fraught. I already find it somewhat difficult to engage on this site due to the contentious theories some members hold, and I echo testingthewater’s warning against the trap of reopening these old controversies. You’re trying to thread a really fine needle between “meaningfully advocate change” and “open all possible debates” that I don’t think is feasible.
The site is currently watching a major push from Yudkowsky and Soares’ book launch towards a broad coalition for an AI pause. It really only takes a couple major incidents of connecting the idea to ethnonationalism, scientific racism and/or dictatorship for the targets of your advocacy to turn away.
I’m not going to suggest you stay on-message (lw is way too “truth-seeking” for that to reach anyone), but you should carefully consider the ways in which your future goals conflict.