Social events with plausible deniability

The example here is that I'm working for an NGO that opposes iodizing salt in developing countries because it is racist, for reasons. I've been reading online that it raises IQ and that raising IQ is good, actually. I want to discuss this in a safe space.

I can do this by having any friends or family who don't work for the NGO. This seems more likely to work than attending a cancellation party at the NGO. If the NGO prevents me from having outside friends or talking to family then it's dangerous and I should get out regardless of its opinion on iodization.

There are better examples, I could offer suggestions if you like, probably you can also think of many.

Fair point. I think I agree with this distinction!

Fair question - I guess that a certain discussion doesn't necessarily have to be "heavy" but I believe that humans are far less skilled at communication, especially in social settings, for the majority of these interactions to not flare up some level of insecurity, human bias, or offend someone's held beliefs. 

I personally would say that I'm quite good at navigating a social context while also being able to broach traditionally taboo'd topics, but I do not think this I represent the norm. The general heuristic of avoiding potentially controversial topics has served me well in most social settings like this, where I believe the purpose is for social connection on a lighter, surface level. 

As I replied to a previous comment, I think I'd append my original comment that if OP was advocating for banning normal parties in favor of this format, I'd be against that. I suppose the idea I'm trying to communicate is that it's important to know your setting and the social context before engaging in these types of behaviors, and that this habit will serve you far better in facilitating social connection. 

All politically correct beliefs should go to the hat. Plausible deniability for everyone.

(And maybe everyone should pick two or three beliefs. Bonus points for making a convincing claim that one of them is a logical outcome of the other. Oops, you actually can't get bonus points, that would ruin the deniability.)

You may be right that the benefits are worth the costs for some people, but I think if you have access to a group interested in doing social events with plausible deniability, that group is probably already a place where you should be able to be honest about your beliefs without fear of "cancellation." Then it is preferable to practice (and expect) the moral courage / accountability / honesty of saying what you actually believe and defending it within that group. If you don't have a group of people interested in doing social events with plausible deniability, you probably can't do them and this point is mute. So I'm not sure I understand the use case - you have a friend group that is a little cancel-ish but still interested in expressing controversial beliefs? That sounds like something that is not a rationalist group (or maybe I am spoiled by the culture of Jenn's meetups). 

I'd argue one of the issues with a lot of early social media moderation policies was treating ironic beliefs that were usually banned as not ban-worthy, because as it turned out, ironic belief in some extremism turned out to either have been fake, or turned into the real versions over time.

Does the list need to be pre-composed? Couldn't they just ask attendees to write some hot takes and put them in a hat? It might make the party even funnier.