draft: "The Signaling Hazard Objection"

diff --git a/content/drafts/the-signaling-hazard-objection.md b/content/drafts/the-signaling-hazard-objection.md
new file mode 100644 (file)
index 0000000..3c4097d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/drafts/the-signaling-hazard-objection.md
@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+Title: The Signaling Hazard Objection
+Date: 2022-09-05
+Category: commentary
+Tags: politics, coordination, homosexuality
+Status: draft
+
+A common far-right objection to tolerance of male homosexuality is that it constitutes a "signaling hazard": if Society legitimizes the gays rather than oppressing them, that interferes with normal men expressing friendly affection for each other without being seen as potentially gay, which is bad for the fabric of Society, which depends on strong bonds between men who trust each other. (Presumably, homosexual tendencies would still exist in some people even if forbidden, but gestures of affection between males wouldn't be seen as potentially escalating to homosexual relations, if homosexual relations were considered unthinkable and to be discouraged, with violence if necessary.)
+
+People who grew up in the current year generally don't think much of this argument: why do you care if someone isn't sure you're straight? What's wrong with being gay?
+
+The argument might be easier to understand if we can find other examples of "signaling hazard" dynamics. For example, well-read people in the current year are often aware of various facts that they're careful never to acknowledge in public for fear of being seen as right-wing (racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, _&c._). In this context, the analogous dismissal, "Why do you care if someone isn't sure you're progressive? What's wrong with being right-wing?", doesn't seem compelling. _Of course_, we care; _of course_, there's something wrong with it.
+
+One person's _modus ponens_ is another's _modus tollens_; the implications of the analogy could be read in two ways. Maybe it's especially important that we repress right-wing ideologies, so that good progressive people can afford speak more freely among ourselves without being confused for one of the bad guys.
+
+Or maybe being constrained by signals is this way is dumb and inefficient, and a smarter Society would figure out how to coordinate on a better equilibrium, with more freedom for everyone to speak or show affection without being confused for something they're not.

diff --git a/notes/a-hill-of-validity-sections.md b/notes/a-hill-of-validity-sections.md
index e1406d0..1cafde5 100644 (file)
--- a/notes/a-hill-of-validity-sections.md
+++ b/notes/a-hill-of-validity-sections.md
@@ -359,10 +359,6 @@ https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2007/12/explanation-of-democratic-centr
 
 the second generation doesn't "get the joke"; young people don't understand physical strength differences anymore
 
-I just thought of an interesting argument that almost no one else would (because it requires both prog-sight and NRx-sight)
-You know the "signaling hazard" (pace Jim) argument against public tolerance of male homosexuality (tolerating gays interferes with normal men expressing affection for each other without being seen as gay, which is bad for unit cohesion, &c.). Until recently, I hadn't thought much of it (because of my prog upbringing)—why do you care if someone isn't sure you're straight?
-but recent events have made me more sympathetic to its empirical reality—if human nature is such that 140+ IQ ppl actually can't publicly clear up a trivial philosophy-of-language dispute because of the fear of appearing transphobic—well, that's really dumb, but it's the SAME KIND of dumb as "can't express male friendship because of the fear of appearing gay"
-which suggests a "signaling hazard" argument in favor of political correctness (!!)—we can't tolerate racism, or else Good people would have to incur more costs to signal antiracism (same structure as "we can't tolerate gays, or else normal guys have to incur more costs to signal not-gayness")
 
 that's the thing; I read as lefty because I am morally lefty (in contrast to Real Men Who Lift &c.); it's just that I had the "bad luck" of reading everything I could about race and IQ after the James Watson affair in 'aught-seven, and all my leftness is filtered through ten years of living with inconvenient hypotheses