Probably very true. But, I wonder how you'd go about proving to someone that they have respectability disease.
Speaking for myself, my views on some topics has changed quite markedly over time. There's no clear pattern here - some of my recently developed views especially on expertise, the reliability of science etc might be considered extreme, whereas in other areas my views have become more closer to mainstream respectability with time. The cause of the latter wasn't some newfound influence or need for respect but rather, seeing what happens when those views were put into practice by others and/or hearing the 'other side of the story', so to speak.
The man on the gallows can indeed speak "truth" to the King, but he can also say things that aren't all that helpful like "down with the King!" without worrying about details like who or what would replace that king. And as such when the man on the gallows has in the past avoided the gallows and successfully done a Cromwell or a Lenin, they sometimes discovered that their ideas weren't quite as refined or internally consistent as they thought. Now they replaced the 'respectable' people life didn't really get better.
This is definitely something I struggle with - where to find the right balance between criticism of the current system and sweep it all away type radicalism, vs more moderate respectability. One of the problems is that when the Overton Window is in the wrong place, respectable radicalism is required to move it. Some people have to say the unsayable. But then if the window moves and the question becomes not "what is true" but rather "what should we do about it?" then the world suddenly needs pragmatists who are willing to compromise in some way. The latter people are often the same as the former, and are perhaps not suffering from respectability disease but merely changing their approach in response to changing needs.
Probably very true. But, I wonder how you'd go about proving to someone that they have respectability disease.
Speaking for myself, my views on some topics has changed quite markedly over time. There's no clear pattern here - some of my recently developed views especially on expertise, the reliability of science etc might be considered extreme, whereas in other areas my views have become more closer to mainstream respectability with time. The cause of the latter wasn't some newfound influence or need for respect but rather, seeing what happens when those views were put into practice by others and/or hearing the 'other side of the story', so to speak.
The man on the gallows can indeed speak "truth" to the King, but he can also say things that aren't all that helpful like "down with the King!" without worrying about details like who or what would replace that king. And as such when the man on the gallows has in the past avoided the gallows and successfully done a Cromwell or a Lenin, they sometimes discovered that their ideas weren't quite as refined or internally consistent as they thought. Now they replaced the 'respectable' people life didn't really get better.
This is definitely something I struggle with - where to find the right balance between criticism of the current system and sweep it all away type radicalism, vs more moderate respectability. One of the problems is that when the Overton Window is in the wrong place, respectable radicalism is required to move it. Some people have to say the unsayable. But then if the window moves and the question becomes not "what is true" but rather "what should we do about it?" then the world suddenly needs pragmatists who are willing to compromise in some way. The latter people are often the same as the former, and are perhaps not suffering from respectability disease but merely changing their approach in response to changing needs.