My positions on drugs, politics, morality, money, and meaning all have one thing in common. They are easily misunderstood. Disagreement is easy, respectful disagreement is hard.

One cause of this problem is Ideological Gravity. This is the phenomenon by which a new or otherwise unrecognized argument is pulled toward its ideological ’nearest neighbor’. It’s snap-judgement, but for ideas.

Ideological Gravity makes it hard for smart folks to express nuanced views because they will receive backlash for what the view sounds like but not what the view is. The result is that smart folks are resistant to touching subjects with massive ideological neighbors.

There is a false assumption that everyone is defending a generic ideology.

Please clarify my position by steel-manning 1 the argument before offering a rebuttal.


Related: The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics

The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics says that a particle can spin clockwise and counterclockwise at the same time – until it is observed, at which point it definitely becomes one or the other. This theory claims that observation alone, the mere presence of an observer, can fundamentally change reality.

The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics says that when you observe or interact with a problem in any way, you can be blamed for it. At the very least, you are subject to blame for not doing more. Even if you don’t make the problem worse, even if you make the situation slightly better, the ethical burden of the problem falls on you as soon as you observe it. In particular, if you interact with a problem and benefit from it, you are a complete monster.