When to mention irrelevant accusations?
post by philh · 2023-01-14T21:58:08.015Z · LW · GW · 7 commentsThis is a question post.
Contents
Answers 18 Elizabeth 15 Ben Pace 8 Richard_Kennaway 4 Said Achmiz 3 Dagon 3 philh 2 Slider 1 runolfsson None 7 comments
I expect in the near-ish future to publish a thing. That thing references an idea that someone had and published on LW. I believe (having seen a credible accusation) that person has acted unethically and illegally, in ways irrelevant to the idea.
I currently intend to mention this belief, either in a footnote or a comment, along the lines of "this isn't relevant but I believe _" (and link to why I believe that). But I feel like doing so has the potential to stir up drama, and have a bunch of people telling me I shouldn't have said anything?
(Maybe relevant: in a kinda-similar situation, I recently had someone tell me I shouldn't have brought something up. But the situations were different in that I thought the thing clearly was relevant, that time, and bringing it up was clearly reasonable of me. It was frustrating, and I might have over-updated on how likely that kind of thing is to happen.)
So in the spirit of why I'm punching you [LW · GW], here's a space for
- Me to explain my current thinking, which I'll do in an answer;
- Others to give their own thoughts, and perhaps persuade me that I shouldn't say anything.
Assuming I do mention the thing, I can link here when I do and hopefully avoid the drama that might not have happened anyway.
Note that a blanket "do/don't mention", based on what I've said so far, feels unlikely to be very helpful here. I think there are probably situations compatible with what I describe where mentioning is good, and situations compatible with what I describe where mentioning is not good. The question is how we decide which is which.
Answers
On a practical level: every time I've included a controversial attention-grabbing aside in a post, I've regretted it. The discussion and I assume people's attention always focuses on that aside, at the cost of my primary point. If you're trying to stir up anti-this-person sentiment in general that might be a plus, but if you want your actual argument to be considered on its merits it's a severe impairment. If you think the accusation is important I'd strongly encourage you to split the posts.
↑ comment by philh · 2023-01-15T14:09:16.001Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Nod. That's some of the reason why, if I say anything, I'm leaning towards saying it in a comment rather than footnote. That way readers from off-LW don't get distracted; and the discussion hopefully lives under a single comment that can be voted on separately and collapsed.
And, fortunately it's the kind of post where if it doesn't get much engagement by itself I won't be very sad.
Replies from: pktechgirl↑ comment by Elizabeth (pktechgirl) · 2023-01-15T18:57:58.523Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I think that's an improvement. Also I missed that the info had come up on lw before, which I think changes things a lot. Sometimes the punishment for something is people knowing you did it.
The main thing I track is whether I expect healthy information flows when the information is relevant.
If someone was arrested for robbery and I'm citing their work on Quantum Mechanics, I wouldn't think it relevant to bring up. If they were being considered for a job looking after finances I'd want to make sure the person hiring them knew.
If I felt like nobody would tell them because it was all hush-hush, then I would be more likely to write something about it publicly... though not really in the stuff about quantum mechanics? Seems unfair to punish them in every possible channel, as long as they're receiving the actual costs involved (job opportunities, reputation amongst colleagues and coworkers, etc).
If I thought it was being super quashed, I might have a footnote at the start of my discussion of quantum mechanics saying "For the record I have ethical concerns about this person's behavior in other situations, here is a link to a brief shortform comment by me on that" or a link to info about it, but otherwise not bring it up.
In general, I think most disclaimers aren't worth it.
The penultimate word of your question answers it.
If someone else, unprompted, then cries stinking fish, you can suggest that that discussion take place elsewhere.
This seems like a strange thing to ask.
If someone has done something illegal, alert the appropriate authorities. If the person has violated the rules of some institution or group, alert the appropriate leaders or administrators of that group.
Bringing up any of those things in the context of mentioning a person in an unrelated context seems bizarre and pointless. The motivations that you list in your explanator comment… seem like non sequiturs, quite frankly. I don’t understand how any of those things translate into bringing up this matter when writing about unrelated things.
Again: institutions (including but not limited to the government) that have laws or rules also have mechanisms for the enforcement of those laws/rules. Avail yourself of those mechanisms. Don’t involve unrelated things, people, discussions, contexts, etc. in the matter.
I really hate attempts to discuss topics where details can't be shared. I suspect the right answer is to resolve, or at least acknowledge the accusations clearly, separately and in advance of citing the person. Then you can have a footnote pointing to that information, and stating that you find it irrelevant to the idea you're discussing.
Note that by doing so, you are to some extent supporting the apparent LW reaction to ignore the behavior - you believe it happened and was significant, but you don't want to participate in any consequences, and still want to give credit to the person for the idea (and/or use some of their fame to highlight the idea).
Alternately, if the idea is standalone and has sufficient support without the source, then say "this post is intended to stand alone - it's been discussed before, but not in this context." If someone else brings up the previous author and their crimes, then you respond with it's irrelevance (in your mind), but don't do it proactively.
All of this is dependent on the specifics of what the person did (or is suspected to have done), how tied to the person the ideas are, and whether it's important enough to tie yourself into the drama.
↑ comment by philh · 2023-01-14T22:53:01.784Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Oh, I was unclear about this and I'll edit into the body quickly. I didn't want to bring the details up here. But many details can be shared; I have little-to-no private knowledge and I intend to link to the public knowledge I have in the footnote or comment.
Replies from: Dagon↑ comment by Dagon · 2023-01-15T17:07:17.722Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
In most things, details matter. If you can link to it in the article, why NOT link to it in the discussion of how to link to it in the article? Alternately, wouldn't the same reasons to obfuscate in THIS discussion apply to the article itself?
Replies from: philh↑ comment by philh · 2023-01-16T01:16:39.018Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I believe this is answered by the linked post [LW · GW].
Replies from: Dagon↑ comment by Dagon · 2023-01-16T16:27:38.736Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Oh, that. I almost never strong-downvote, but I disagree pretty vehemently with the proposal in that post. It's perhaps fine in a closed group, with a government-like constitution and formal monopoly on punishments for violations (including many corporations, for some classes of violation).
That's completely NOT what I thought this question was about. But it does reinforce my main objection: details matter. Some crimes should be published, and push the admins and other users to shun the offender. Some crimes shouldn't be, but it's hard to know the difference, and there's probably no way to be abstract about it. Trying to split them up is likely to seem (and to be, IMO) disingenuous, with the abstraction necessarily skewed toward this instance, but with some participants in the discussion not knowing the context. THAT is wrong.
Replies from: philh, philh↑ comment by philh · 2023-04-13T19:28:23.470Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
So I came across this again, and now that I have more spoons it felt polite to try to explain why I disliked this comment.
There are three reasons. The first is: I already acknowledged your objection. You say:
Trying to split them up is likely to seem (and to be, IMO) disingenuous, with the abstraction necessarily skewed toward this instance, but with some participants in the discussion not knowing the context.
And in the post, under a list of disadvantages, I say:
You can’t really remove the initial post from its context of “Alice thinks we should punch Bob”. You can hide that context, but that doesn’t remove its influence. For example, if there are cases similar to Bob’s that would be covered by the same theory, Alice’s post is likely to gloss over the parts of the theory that relate to them-but-not-Bob, and to focus too much on the parts that relate to Bob-but-not-them.
These seem like basically the same objection to me? I don't specifically mention why it's bad that the abstraction is skewed towards that instance, but it seems pretty clearly what I'm describing.
So: I say "this has good features A, B, C, and bad features X, Y, Z, and overall I think it's good". You say "this is bad because X". What am I to make of this? It could be that you think X is worse than I do; or it could be you think A, B, C are less good and Y, Z are less bad than I do; or it could be that you haven't thought about A, B, C, Y, Z (perhaps because you didn't read the post carefully); or probably a bunch of other things. But you give me no way to distinguish between these possibilities.
If you instead said: "this seems bad to me because X, and all those other considerations just don't stack up next to it", then I probably wouldn't find that convincing (and wouldn't particularly expect to be able to change your mind either), but I'd at least have a better idea of why we disagree.
The second is: you suggest no alternative course of action. I'm asking "I don't know if I should do a thing, help?" and you're criticizing the way I ask for help. But you haven't suggested a different way I could ask for help, that doesn't involve doing the thing that I don't know if I should do.
The third is: it sounds like you don't expect me to receive useful advice by asking this way? But I did receive useful advice.
I don't commit to continuing this conversation effortfully, but I did want to say this much.
Replies from: Dagon↑ comment by Dagon · 2023-04-14T13:28:20.833Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
It may be that we're thinking of this at different levels. I don't believe there CAN BE a general model of norm development/enforcement - it's all a pile of exceptions to exceptions. At best, you can examine specifics and adjust your baseline, but discussing serious violations purely in the abstract is never effective.
I don't remember if I objected to the weighting, to the list of pros and cons, or to something else, but I remember not liking the generalization.
I'm not sure there's useful further crux-finding to do - happy to put more effort into it, but my default will be to let it go until it comes up again.
Replies from: philh↑ comment by philh · 2023-04-14T16:21:13.983Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
(I'm going to reply, but I'm also happy to drop if you prefer. No obligation to respond, obviously.)
I don’t believe there CAN BE a general model of norm development/enforcement
This sounds to me like you think I'm suggesting something very different from what I'm actually suggesting. Like, it sounds like you think that I think I have a general model of norm development/enforcement; or that I am suggesting that people offer general models of norm development/enforcement; but neither is the case.
If you instead make it "...of any particular norm" then it's closer? I do think I have some general models of "here is a norm that we should develop and enforce", and I think other people might also have such models that they can offer. I don't think I have them in exacting detail, such that I can specify in advance exactly how I think we should respond to every situation, and I'm not suggesting that others try to offer that level of detail either. I don't think that's particularly a problem.
(Do you think e.g. laws against murder are a big pile of exceptions to exceptions? I think it's overall good that we have a relatively-succinct idea of "here are the situations in which we consider it acceptable for a person to kill another person", even if the relatively-succinct form doesn't fully capture everything we might think about specific instances of homicide.)
I note that you still haven't suggested how you think I should have acted. From
I don’t remember if I objected to the weighting, to the list of pros and cons, or to something else, but I remember not liking the generalization.
It kind of sounds like maybe you think that me asking this question was fine, and maybe you even think me giving my own answer could have been fine, but you think the specific answer I gave (i.e. the list considerations I wrote) was a bad answer? (What did you think of Ben's comment [LW(p) · GW(p)]?)
Here's a hypothesis: you misunderstand what I was suggesting in "now here's why I'm punching you". The thing I was actually suggesting is a thing you don't in general have a problem with. There are some instances of it - like my answer in this thread - that you think are bad. There are other instances of it - perhaps like my essay on responsibility [LW · GW] that you commented on positively, and perhaps like Ben's comment in this thread - that you think are fine.
Replies from: Dagon↑ comment by Dagon · 2023-04-14T17:00:50.937Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I think it's very likely I misunderstood (and likely still do) - it may be that I am over-focused on "punching" as a metaphor, and that is blocking my ability to understand the tie between general and specific. In fact, I don't quite know what you're suggesting - you seem like a pretty reasonable and thoughtful person, and I doubt I'd strongly object to whatever you think is right, even if I somewhat disagree. I do react badly to what seems like an encouragement to violate or radically change norms without a fair bit of effort into drawing the boundaries of the change.
Do you think e.g. laws against murder are a big pile of exceptions to exceptions?
Absolutely and obviously! If you don't, that's probably a good pointer toward one of our cruxes. The social balance of when is potentially-deadly force permitted, not permitted but not really punished, and actively punished in what ways, depending on who was involved, the specific circumstances, and who is doing the punishing, is a huge mass of contradictions and specifics. These norms and laws have evolved over millenea of human codification of laws, and have changed radically both over time and among different groups.
edited to add that not just written laws against murder which are piles of exceptions, but the implementation of the laws are heavily individual-judgement-based, from who gets investigated, to what charges to bring, to what evidence to allow or suppress, to human decisions of guilt, to judicial decision of punishment.
Replies from: philh↑ comment by philh · 2023-04-17T21:45:11.630Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I think it’s very likely I misunderstood (and likely still do)
Okay. I think it's likely not worth it for me to try again to explain.
I do note that I still don't know what you think of the examples I gave, or what you think I should have done differently in this situation.
I should give a correction: I suggested that Ben's comment in this thread was an example of the thing. (I didn't say so explicitly, but I was thinking it.) That's not quite right. I claim that Ben's comment could be an example of the thing, in that someone doing the thing could generate it. But (without having access to Ben's internals, I assume) it's probably not the case that Ben generated it by doing the thing I described in "why I'm punching you". I'm more interested in the thing generated than the generating process, but I do think the generating process matters, and plausibly you think it matters more than I do.
(If it's still unclear to you what the thing is, then "whether it matters to Dagon more than philh" might be a thing you have no way of evaluating. That's fine, I'm not asking you to try to evaluate it, I'm just kind of noting this for the record because I said something that was kind of untrue and I want to correct it.)
I'll also claim Killing Socrates as an example of the thing, based on this comment [LW(p) · GW(p)].
If you don’t, that’s probably a good pointer toward one of our cruxes.
Not really, I just wrote unclearly here. It's not that I do or don't think laws against murder are a big pile of exceptions to exceptions. It's that when you say
it’s all a pile of exceptions to exceptions. At best, you can examine specifics and adjust your baseline, but discussing serious violations purely in the abstract is never effective.
My reaction is, like, "it sounds like this would rule out writing down laws against murder".
(Gonna limit myself to two more effortful comments after this.)
Replies from: Dagon↑ comment by Dagon · 2023-04-18T00:18:14.932Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Willing to take a few more shots at it myself. Let's stay with the murder topic, and I'll see if I can tie it back to the original question.
My reaction is, like, "it sounds like this would rule out writing down laws against murder".
This does rule out writing down rules against murder without context. It rules out trying to determine rules from first principles. It means that any discussion should probably happen in the legislature, and focused mostly on practical problems, rather than on a random message board. A given group may want to (or have to) discuss how to handle a murder that's not addressed by the legal system, but it'll almost certainly start with the reasons it wasn't addressed and hinge on specifics, not generalities.
Likewise for when and how to punch people (in the literal sense, and in the metaphor for verbally attacking a norm defector outside of a formalized sanction system) - in the abstract, just don't. In the specific, sometimes you probably should.
Also likewise for when to bring up unrelated accusations. Generally, unless it's relevant to the point or you're involved in the context, don't. Sometimes it IS arguably relevant, or most of the audience is involved in the context, in which case do. But that line is very twisty and over-fitted to the data, not cleanly generalizable.
Replies from: philh↑ comment by philh · 2023-04-22T21:27:06.534Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
This does rule out writing down rules against murder without context. It rules out trying to determine rules from first principles. It means that any discussion should probably happen in the legislature, and focused mostly on practical problems, rather than on a random message board. A given group may want to (or have to) discuss how to handle a murder that’s not addressed by the legal system, but it’ll almost certainly start with the reasons it wasn’t addressed and hinge on specifics, not generalities.
I think I broadly agree with these as desiderata, but there are other desiderata that are often incompatible with them. I think the original essay elaborates on that a bit, but off the cuff I'd say "the legislature has finite time and maybe the question literal murder is a fine use of that time but other things less so" and "sometimes there are good reasons you don't want to discuss the specifics".
Like, this seems super reasonable if we're only talking about literal murder, but... recall that the context was
[you:] it’s all a pile of exceptions to exceptions. At best, you can examine specifics and adjust your baseline, but discussing serious violations purely in the abstract is never effective.
[me:] My reaction is, like, “it sounds like this would rule out writing down laws against murder”.
So when you say e.g. "It means that any discussion should probably happen in the legislature", do you just mean discussion of murder? Or do you also include discussion of things that are less bad, and less universally agreed to be bad, than murder; but that match the "pile of exceptions to exceptions" thing?
If the former then this just seems like an irrelevant tangent - the thing that means discussion should probably happen in the legislature, is not the thing that we were talking about previously. If the latter, then I simply disagree.
in the abstract, just don’t. In the specific, sometimes you probably should.
Okay, but how do you know when those times are? My model of you refuses to answer this question, saying there's no general answer. Honestly this feels to me more like trying to avoid blame than like trying to help people do the right thing? Like, you'd prefer someone to make a mistake because you didn't say anything, than to make a mistake based on advice you gave, even if you expect your advice to reduce the number and magnitude of mistakes? Not saying that's what's going on here, but I get a sense of that kind of dynamic.
But that line is very twisty and over-fitted to the data, not cleanly generalizable.
If I thought the line was cleanly generalizable, I wouldn't have had to ask this question, or at least I would have asked it very differently. As it was I gave a list of several considerations, and asked people for others. I claim that my behavior here does not look like the behavior of someone who thinks anything like e.g. "I can figure out the answers to three yes-no questions and then I'll know what I should do".
Replies from: Dagon↑ comment by Dagon · 2023-04-23T19:49:26.299Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I have to admit I'm getting a little lost between generality and specific, and what's literal "murder" or "punching" and what's a metaphor for something even less clear, which we're not willing to specify. Also a bit unsure whether we're talking about frameworks and actions undertaken by random users/residents and by formal legislative/judicial/administrative rulemaking. I think I'll bow out for now.
Replies from: philh↑ comment by philh · 2023-04-23T23:30:46.407Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Fair enough. Though to clarify one point:
what’s literal “murder” or “punching” and what’s a metaphor for something even less clear, which we’re not willing to specify.
I don't think I've ever been unwilling to specify what these are metaphors for. E.g. the third sentence (or fourth, depending how you count) of "why I'm punching you":
Things I take as metaphorical punching include name calling, writing angry tweets to or about someone, ejecting them from a group, callout posts, and arguing that we should punch them.
Someone following the advice in that post might use metaphors and be unwilling to specify what they're metaphors for. But I'd expect them to be willing to specify this particular metaphor, i.e. what kind of punching they're talking about. (Or more likely I'd expect them to not speak metaphorically about that at all.)
(Actually, I don't think I've used "murder" metaphorically at all. I've used it as an example, but that's not the same.)
Replies from: Dagon↑ comment by Dagon · 2023-04-24T14:24:18.820Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
for some reason, I don't seem to be able to edit my previous comment. I'd like to apologize for framing that as accusatory - I don't believe you're intentionally causing confusion among different topics and different levels of abstraction. I do mean to say that I'm not able/willing to put in sufficient effort to keep things straight in my mind, and to bring value to the discussion. I am bowing out for that reason.
Replies from: philh↑ comment by philh · 2023-01-16T19:00:16.223Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Like in the comments of the other post, I feel like you misunderstand what's happening here but I don't feel like trying to unpack.
Replies from: Dagon↑ comment by Dagon · 2023-01-16T20:55:05.479Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Fair enough. I think that's my actual objection - it's intentionally obfuscated what's happening here, and my complaints that specifics matter are ignored. For topics like this (where there's a lot of social uncertainty and an unclear equilibrium between multiple opposing desires), you need to generalize from multiple worked examples, not from first principles.
Some considerations I have:
(Spoilered to make it easier for people to write their own unprimed.)
-
As far as I know: the person has not admitted doing the thing; there has been no justice done, no public accountability; no reason to think the thing would not happen again if circumstances enabled.
-
I believe the user is in good standing on LW; they are "one of us". I might feel differently if I was referring to Roman Polanski's films, or the Unabomber's math papers. I might feel differently if I was not publishing on LW. (This point also relevant when choosing between a comment and a footnote. I publish on my blog and crosspost here, so a footnote would be more visible to outside readers.)
-
I don't know how many people are aware of the accusation. It was published on LW but might not have been seen widely. I don't know if the lack-of-reaction is because broadly speaking people don't know of the accusations; or think no-reaction is appropriate; or think "some reaction would be good but idk what and no one else is doing anything so uh"; or what.
-
I don't particularly have any public response in mind. The person could be banned from LW but I dunno if I think that would actually be good. I'm not actively trying to make anything happen. But the (apparent) complete lack of reaction does seem bad to me; and it seems more likely to me that making the accusation more widely known causes a reaction that I consider broadly positive than a reaction I consider broadly negative.
-
I am confident enough in the accusation to say "I believe _" rather than "it seems likely to me that ", but not confident enough to simply say "". (I'm reluctant to put this in terms of probabilities, partly because the difference between those three confidence levels doesn't just feel like a matter of probabilities to me?)
-
Many people have acted unethically and illegally in minor ways. This is not a minor way.
-
If I don't mention the belief in this situation, when do I? It will almost never be relevant. Create a whole new post to remind people of it? Bring it up whenever the person posts on LW? Those don't feel better, to me.
-
Pointing in the other direction, I feel like there's a kind of culture where people feel unable to mention anyone without disclaiming that every bad thing the person has done is bad. Like, I think [the idea of Orson Scott Card I've picked up from Reddit, and likely also the actual Orson Scott Card] is homophobic and that's bad. But I don't want anyone who mentions Orson Scott Card to feel compelled to say that he's a homophobe and that's bad. I do think mentioning the belief points in the direction towards that kind of culture; but I also don't want a culture where people don't mention such things because they don't want that kind of culture.
The weight of these feels pretty firmly on "mention the belief" to me.
↑ comment by JBlack · 2023-01-14T22:53:33.747Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
If you are not confident enough in the strength of your evidence to simply say X, don't publish it at all. In particular you state that you are intending to act on a "credible accusation". This suggests that you do not actually have first-hand evidence of the truth of the matter, no matter how much you trust your source, and should be taken as further reason not to publish at all.
If you believe that a crime has been committed, that it should be punished, and have some testimony or other evidence to back up that accusation, we are not the people you should be talking to.
If you feel very strongly that you should publish anyway, consult a lawyer capable of advising you on matters of defamation before you do so.
Replies from: philh↑ comment by philh · 2023-01-15T01:16:44.900Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
It seems to be that your advice would prohibit me from saying "I believe Roman Polanski is a child rapist" or "I believe OJ Simpson is a murderer". I'd try to avoid flatly asserting those. (I seem to have a higher bar than most for doing that.) I certainly have no first hand evidence on the truth of the claims.
If you think your advice wouldn't apply to those, why not? If you think it would...
I'm not going to refrain out of fear of defamation lawsuits. I think that would be both cowardly and a miscalculation of the risks.
Replies from: JBlack↑ comment by JBlack · 2023-01-15T22:47:45.549Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
One enormous difference is that both of those are matters of public record, as determined by admission and/or jury verdicts made after examining direct evidence. Furthermore, in the current context you are not going to damage either of their lives to any meaningful degree by publically making the claim (regardless of whether the statements are true or not). If you were making either claim under similar circumstances to the situation you were asking about, I would also strongly advise against it for much the same reasons.
Note that I am not just talking about "fear of defamation lawsuits". Legal advice would help in reducing the risk to yourself and anyone financially connected with you certainly, but also increases the chances of successfully prosecuting the case (in court or otherwise) against the person you believe to have committed this crime.
Quite frankly, stating "by the way, I believe this person to have committed crime X" in a post tangentially related to that person seems one of the worst possible ways to go about the matter.
Replies from: philh↑ comment by philh · 2023-01-16T01:13:45.362Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
both of those are matters of public record, as determined by admission and/or jury verdicts made after examining direct evidence
I specifically chose examples where I believe this is not the case. As I understand the situations:
- Polanski has pled guilty to some of what I accuse him of. He denies other parts, which he has not been tried for. I don't know in what parts of the process a jury would have been involved. (Also, the guilty plea was part of a deal, and I think plea deals have a substantial rate of false confessions.)
- Simpson denies it and was famously acquitted by a jury. He was later found liable in a civil trial. I don't know if a jury would have been involved in that.
increases the chances of successfully prosecuting the case (in court or otherwise) against the person you believe to have committed this crime.
Prosecuting the person is not my goal here. If I do think about the effect of me-saying-something on the chances of the person getting convicted, my guess is that the effect is probably tiny but more likely to lean positive than negative.
If you think the effect is likely substantially negative to the extent that it's worth getting legal advice, I'd like to hear more detail.
↑ comment by Yair Halberstadt (yair-halberstadt) · 2023-01-15T06:18:23.067Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
What are you trying to achieve?
Is it that you feel insufficient attention was paid to this person's misdeeds and you want to focus attention on it?
Or is it that you feel uncomfortable with mentioning this person in a way that reinforces their status as a person in good standing on less wrong?
If the former, I would create a question post in the form "Why are we ignoring what X did?", linking to the original post bringing up their misdeeds.
If the latter it's more tricky. I don't think it's worth derailing your post for that purpose. If it's possible to avoid mentioning them without stealing credit I would. Alternatively you could consider making their name a hyperlink to the post bringing up their misdeeds, but not actually say anything accusatory in the post itself.
I'm not really happy about either of those options, but I don't have any better ideas.
Replies from: philh↑ comment by philh · 2023-01-15T14:18:36.727Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
To some extent both of those, but also...
I think I want to be the kind of person who wouldn't collaborate on a movie with Roman Polanski. Which is not to say "it is the job of director's guilds to punish members when they believe the legal system has failed to do so effectively". It's not to say "I'm going to punish anyone who collaborates on a movie with Roman Polanski". But I think that's the kind of person I want to be.
And if I were on a forum for aspiring movie directors, and talking about one of Roman Polanski's movies, I think mentioning his irrelevant-to-movies actions would a) help me be that kind of person; and b) help others who want to be that kind of person, be that kind of person.
Which is related to the second, but felt worth bringing out explicitly.
Alternatively you could consider making their name a hyperlink to the post bringing up their misdeeds, but not actually say anything accusatory in the post itself.
Hm, yeah. That does feel less likely to cause drama, but...
I think my model for how that works is that by doing that, I'm giving myself kind of a plausible-deniable out where if someone talks about it I can be like "why are you bringing this up? I didn't say anything I just gave a link". And people recognize that I have that, and that I can make it frustrating for them if they say anything, and are less likely to say anything? I dunno, low confidence on this. (And not described very well.) But it feels like something is going on there that I don't love.
Also I think as a reader I'd prefer to know what I'm clicking before I click it.
Replies from: Jiro↑ comment by Jiro · 2023-01-21T21:59:07.274Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
It’s not to say “I’m going to punish anyone who collaborates on a movie with Roman Polanski”. But I think that’s the kind of person I want to be.
What's wrong with doing this is that you're causing harm, not that you're "punishing". Ruining someone's reputation out of pure motives with no explicit desire to cause harm still does cause harm, and needs to be judged on that basis. "The harm I do is not punishment" doesn't change whether you should do it.
And the Polanski comparison doesn't work, even in a directors' forum, because in a situation where Polanski's bad deeds are not well known so you need to tell people about him, as far as you know he could be innocent and the victim of a smear campaign. Now you know otherwise, but that's hindsight.
I also find your original question to be the wrong question. Before asking whether it's okay to mention the accusation in an irrelevant context, you need to establish that it's okay to mention it at all.
Replies from: philh↑ comment by philh · 2023-01-22T10:15:52.328Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
A culture of "we can't accuse anyone of anything until it's been proven in a court of law" causes harm too.
I get the impression you're very aware of the harms of going too far in one direction, and completely insensitive to the harms of going too far in the other direction.
Replies from: Jiro↑ comment by Jiro · 2023-01-22T15:52:19.494Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
You are trying to hedge by saying "it's not punishment", which implies that you think that there's some chance that he's innocent and because you're not punishing him, what you're doing wouldn't be too bad when done to an innocent person. If you're uncertain enough about him that you're going to hedge, you shouldn't be doing anything to him at all.
I get the impression you’re very aware of the harms of going too far in one direction, and completely insensitive to the harms of going too far in the other direction.
You're not telling us what the accusation or the evidence are. Which means that I can't decide for myself what the risks are of erring in either direction. And it would be a bad idea to assume they work in the way most favorable to you when you don't tell us what they are.
Replies from: philh↑ comment by philh · 2023-01-22T16:09:47.257Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
You are trying to hedge by saying “it’s not punishment”, which implies
I have said no such thing. I did a ctrl+f for "punish" on this page to check. The only paragraph I've used that word is one where I'm not remotely saying this, and I have no idea why you're reading it this way.
Even if I had said that, it would not imply what you say it would.
You’re not telling us what the accusation or the evidence are.
Right. That's in part because I'm sensitive to the potential harms of doing so.
Which means that I can’t decide for myself what the risks are of erring in either direction.
Obviously you can't decide what they are in this specific situation. But then I would think the thing to do would be to hold uncertainty. You don't need to either assume that the harms work out one way, or that they work out another. You can say "I don't know which way they work out, but some things that would make me think they work out one way are... and some things that would make me think they work out the other way are...". Recall the paragraph I closed with:
Note that a blanket “do/don’t mention”, based on what I’ve said so far, feels unlikely to be very helpful here. I think there are probably situations compatible with what I describe where mentioning is good, and situations compatible with what I describe where mentioning is not good. The question is how we decide which is which.
This coversation is frustrating. Going forward I'm going to try to avoid putting effort into replying to you, on this post.
Replies from: Jiro↑ comment by Jiro · 2023-01-22T20:46:42.952Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I have said no such thing.
You compared what you would do to this guy to what you'd do to Polanski, and what you'd do to Polanski would be to badmouth him but not to "punish" him.
But then I would think the thing to do would be to hold uncertainty. You don’t need to either assume that the harms work out one way, or that they work out another.
There are situations where I need to have definite information in order to choose one side, and where significant uncertainty makes it appropriate to choose the other side. "Is it okay to harm this person?" is such a situation. If I'm uncertain about whether you have good reason to harm him, especially if it's your own choice not to explain why, I'm going to say "no", not be neutral about it.
You are not a robot and you don't follow the first law of robotics. Actively hurting someone requires better justification than not doing so and allowing harm by inaction.
The question is how we decide which is which.
This is literally true, but the answer includes such things as "how good is your judgment about this person?" And that's something you probably aren't good at answering (because humans in general aren't good at assessing their own ability to judge).
Replies from: philh, philh↑ comment by philh · 2023-01-23T17:13:01.717Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
So looking back at this thread I realize I owe you a (limited) apology: I thought it had been you who told me to consult a lawyer, but that was a different user whose name also starts with a J.
It remains the case that you are misreading me, in a way that I don't even see how you could be doing it, and that that's frustrating. I don't think I retract anything that I've said to you, and I still don't want to put effort into replying to you, partly because you're accusing me of saying things I did not say (even after I pointed out that I didn't say them!) and believing things I do not believe.
But it's possible that if I'd realized sooner that you were someone new, I would have put more effort into my earlier replies and we'd be in a better position now? Or maybe not. But in any case, I think you had not at the time earned the kind of reply that I started out giving you. So I'm sorry about that.
↑ comment by philh · 2023-01-22T20:53:46.216Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Most of this would take more effort to reply to than I want to, but this bit is easy:
You compared what you would do to this guy to what you’d do to Polanski, and what you’d do to Polanski would be to badmouth him but not to “punish” him.
This is simply false. You are wildly misreading me.
↑ comment by tailcalled · 2023-01-14T22:20:19.101Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
As far as I know: the person has not admitted doing the thing; there has been no justice done, no public accountability; no reason to think the thing would not happen again if circumstances enabled.
Is the thing something the person might not have realized that they were doing, or realized the gravity of? Has someone directly contacted the person in private?
Replies from: philh↑ comment by philh · 2023-01-14T21:59:36.263Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
(Extra paragraph because spoilers seemingly don't work on GreaterWrong if they cover a whole comment?)
Argh, maybe I should have obfuscated even those details, and e.g. instead of saying "this is not a minor way" say "I think it is relevant whether or not it is a minor way"; and conclude where the balance of the considerations pointed without saying which considerations pointed in which way?
I think probably that level of paranoia-or-something feels excessive. And it would have made the comment much harder to write.
If a bad experience goes unheard or unobserved somewhere the possibility of it being allievated is quite hard.
I would like to know if/that I would have hurt somebody even if I would initially disagree how that is forceful (but no conditionality that it needs to end or go in the direction of me agreeing).
You present the question as a *dilemma* with only two choices:
a) Give credit to person P's idea I. Discredit the person P by repeating accusations A and judging them believable. Risk criticism for stirring up irrelevant drama.
b) Give credit to I. Be complicit with P by staying silent on A.
But is this really a dilemma? Maybe you're mixing up two topics. Why not write *two* posts, one for each topic?
In the first post you discuss the accusations A. Explain why you feel the need to give those accusations credibility by repeating them publicly and judging them as believable. Let the discussion take its course. Wait for the result. If you really believe that these accusations should be aired here, then do it properly. Give the accused a proper chance to defend themselves. Make sure that you understand your own motives.
In the second post you then discuss the idea I. Any discussion about A would be off-topic for this post about I.
7 comments
Comments sorted by top scores.
comment by Jiro · 2023-01-21T22:31:20.589Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Something else to consider: exactly what do you want to happen as a result of publicizing the accusation? It sounds like you want people to listen to you and take action. But on what basis do you want them to do that? Are you expecting other people to hear an accusation from you and think "I should act solely basis on a statement from philh with no other evidence provided"?
Is that really an attitude you want to encourage? Even if you have some evidence, the people who you want to tell it to won't have any other than your word. They should ignore you, given reasonable norms.
Replies from: philhcomment by Shmi (shminux) · 2023-01-14T23:01:00.699Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
There are two issues here: someone's accountability for their alleged actions, regardless of their other unrelated actions or ideas, and referencing their unrelated work. If you think the former needs to be dealt with but hasn't been, then you can initiate the process, if you are so inclined, or contact relevant LW admins to do so to let them evaluate whether it is a good idea. If you are focused on a topic and want to reference their work unrelated to the alleged actions, it seems like this is a right thing to do, or at least better than suppressing the knowledge of their contribution.
Replies from: philh↑ comment by philh · 2023-01-15T01:36:07.359Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Oh, asking admins directly is probably a thing to do. I think I didn't just do that because...
So I don't want to sound like I'm demanding they do anything. And if I'm not demanding that, I'm kinda just asking them the same question I'm asking here, so why not just ask here? But there's an obvious answer to that, which is that I can give them details and they might be able to tell me things I don't know.
I think also partly because "easier to ask forgiveness than permission", but I don't particularly endorse that or expect them to forbid anything. (I suppose "we'd prefer you don't" is plausible, and then if I do the thing anyway I'd feel obliged to mention that they said that, but that's pretty far from forbidding.)
So I guess I'll contact them in the morning.
comment by RobertM (T3t) · 2023-01-14T22:45:51.585Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The way I'd think about this sort of question is: what am I trying to accomplish? If it's the sort of accusation where establishing common knowledge seems like it ought to significantly reduce the risk of future recurrence (or even mitigate harm in the event that the behavior is repeated), that makes the case for publishing stronger. The quality of the evidence matters too.
Also, just checking that you've considered the obvious options:
- reporting this to formal authorities (with whatever attendant trade-offs you consider that option to have)
- reporting this to the CEA community health team [EA · GW], assuming they're enough a part of the EA community for that to be a relevant option
comment by green_leaf · 2023-01-15T07:44:21.957Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
One way to solve this would be to omit whatever you're referencing from your article, effectively lowering the popularity of that person.