I think if you had a person invited who is known at events to get drunk and go to to people and comment negatively about their least flattering physical feature (e.g. your pimples are gross) it would not be a worry if that person was not invited. This is not about politics but about inappropriate behaviour.

I strongly support local bans on particular topics, so long as they are done in a way that doesn't involve endorsing one side and then refusing to let people who disagree talk.

Part 1

"I fear that a lot of the discourse is getting bogged down in euphemism, abstraction, and appeals to "truth-seeking," when the debate is actually: what kind of people and worldviews do we give status to and what effects does that have on related communities."

This is precisely the sort of attitude which I see as fundamentally opposed to my own view that truth seeking actually happens, and that we should be rewarding status to people and worldviews that are better at getting us closer to the truth, according to our best judgement.

It also I think is a very clear example of what I was talking about in my original post, where someone arguing for one side ignores the fears and actual argument of the other side when expressing their position. You put 'truth seeking', in quotations, because it has nothing to do with what you are claiming yourself to care about. You are caring about status shifts amongst communities, and then you are trying to say I don't actually care about 'truth seeking' -- not arguing I don't, because that is obviously ridiculous -- but insinuating that I actually want to make racists higher status and more acceptable by the way you wrote this sentence.

Obviously this does nothing to convince me, whatever impact it may have on the general audience. Which based on the four agree votes, and three disagree votes that I see right now, is that it gets people to think what they already thought about the issue.

Part 2

I suppose through trying to think through how I'd reply to your underlying fear, I found that I am not actually really sure what the bad thing that you think will happen if an open Nazi is platformed by an EA adjacent organization/venue is.

To give context to my confusion, I was imagining a thought experiment where the main platforms for sharing information about AI safety topics at a professional level was supported by an AI org. Further in this thought experiment there is a brilliant ai safety researcher, who happens to also be openly a Nazi -- in fact he went into alignment research because he thought that untrammelled AI capabilities was being driven by Jewish scientists, and he wanted to stop them from killing everyone. If this man comes up with an important alignment advance, that will actually reduce the odds of human extinction meaningfully, it seems to me transparently obvious that his alignment research should be platformed by EA adjacent organizations.

I'm confident that you will have something say about why this is a bad thought experiment that you disagree with, but I'm not quite sure what you would say, while also taking the idea seriously.

The idea that important researchers who actually make useful advances in one area might also believe stupid and terrible things in other fields is something that has happened far too often for you to say that the possibility should be ignored.

Perhaps the policy I'm advocating, of simply looking at the value of the paper in its field, and ignoring everything else would impose costs from outside observers attacking the organization doing this that are too high to justify publishing the man who has horrible beliefs, since we can't be certain that his advance actually is important ahead of time.

But I'd say in this case the outside observers are acting to damage the future of mankind, and should be viewed as enemies, not as reasonable people.

Of course their own policy probably also makes sense in act utilitarian terms.

So maybe you just are saying that a blanket policy of this sort, without ever looking at the specifics of the case, is the best act utilitarian policy, and should not be understood as saying there are not cases where your heuristic fails catastrophically.

But I feel as though the discussion I just engaged in is far too bloodless to capture what you actually think is bad about publishing a scientist who made an advance that will make the world better if it is published, and who is also an open Nazi.

Anyways the general possibility that open Nazis might be right about something very important that is relevant to us is sufficient to explain why I would not endorse a blanket ban of the sort you are describing.

(On the dog walk, I realized, what I'd forgotten, that the obvious answer was that doing this will raise the status of Nazis, which would actually be bad)

"the common core seems to be ~ we object to extending special-guest and/or speaker status to certain individuals at an EA-adjacent conference. I'm struggling to understand how that assertion strongly implies stuff like "pushing society in a direction that leads to" McCarthyism, embracing "cancel culture" norms more generally, or not "allow[ing adults] to read whichever arguments they are interested in about controversial topics . . . ." For example, I don't recall seeing anyone here say that Hanania et al. should get canceled by whoever is hosting their websites, that they should lose their jobs, etc. (although I don't recall every single comment)."

So I certainly pattern match the things being said in this discussion as the things said by people who want to get Substack to remove Hanania, want people with his opinions who have a normal employer to lose their jobs, and then after they have lost their jobs, they want to have the financial system refuse to process payments to them by someone who wants to help them survive now that they've lost their job, since after all it is important to stop people from funneling money to Nazis.

I can't speak for everyone, but I think the crux is that I tend to think the objectors are actually in the first camp, and that they need to be fought on that basis. And so moving forward towards agreement would creating trust that the objectors actually aren't.

But I think there is also an important difference on the question of what it means to invite someone as a speaker -- ie does it mean that you are endorsing in some sense what they say, or are you just saying that they are someone that enough attendees will find interesting to make it worth giving them a speaking slot.

A culture in which we try to stop people from getting a chance to listen to people who they find interesting, because we dislike things they believe, seems to me to be the essence of the thing I think is bad. Giving someone an opportunity to speak is not endorsement in my head, and it is a very bad norm to treat it like it is.

This also, incidentally, is where the people running Manifest were coming from: They fundamentally don't see inviting Hanania as endorsing his most controversial views, and they certainly don't see it as endorsing the views he held in his twenties that he now loudly claims to reject.

While the deplatforming side seems to think that a culture where people who believe bad things are given platforms to speak just because the people deciding who will speak think they are interesting is terrible because it is implicitly endorsing the bad things they believe.

To give a different example, if I was running a major EA event, and I could get Emile Torres to speak at it, I definitely would, even though I think he is often arguing in bad faith, and even though I vehemently disagree with both much of his model of the world and the values he seems to espouse. I think enough people would find him interesting enough to be worth listening to, so it makes sense to 'extend him special-guest/or speaker status'.

I think it's fine to have a narrower idea of what views should be platformed within your own community than in society at large. Different communities have different purposes, and different purposes will point to different sets of ideas and speakers to be platformed. That is as it should be. I want to suggest two other possible cruxes which do seem somewhat cruxy to me:
1. deplatforming these particular speakers is not what the ideals of EA dictate. The core thing that EA is about is creating an intellectually open space to explore strange fringe ideas about how to make the world better, and these speakers fit that purpose.
2. Manifest is not an EA event. That is part of what attracted me to it. It belongs to the forecasting community, which is a distinct thing, even if the membership is overlapping. So when EAs try to deplatform speakers at Manifest, they are reaching out beyond their own community and trying to dictate what can be said in someone elses community, which sure makes it look a lot more like your idea of cancel culture.