3 ms·

I'm not entirely sure. I've been called an SJW though, so i must be arational. I'm mocking the parent's sentiment. Calling people arational and "immune to basic

• bobcostas55 10y ago
  The world is what it is regardless of anyone's views. And there's a difference between values and beliefs about the state of the world that are open to empirical investigation. If someone thinks the sun orbits around the earth, this is not a "value". It is a hypothesis that can be investigated and refuted. The question is: how do you react when the data contradicts your hypotheses? How do you react when it is shown that the arguments you base your views on are fallacious? The SJW position is to dismiss empiricism and rationality instead of changing their views.
  • danharaj 10y ago
    > It is a hypothesis that can be investigated and refuted. I already covered that. Empirical evidence can only be obtained by experience. It is very important to science that experiments are reproducible, which means that the results of the experiment can be observed independently. Observation is experience. > The question is: how do you react when the data contradicts your hypotheses? How do you react when it is shown that the arguments you base your views on are fallacious? Do you really think i would answer that with "i ignore that information!!1!". Other people label an "SJW" with these incriminations. > The SJW position is to dismiss empiricism and rationality instead of changing their views. There is no such thing as "The SJW position". No one holds this position. As i said, other people claim that "SJW"s are irrational and reject empirical evidence. It is a word used to smear people by grouping them together in a category of "bad". There is no "SJW" manifesto or association of "SJW"s. Everyone takes in data, evaluates it, and changes their beliefs based on it. This is the basis of intelligence. However, we take shortcuts. Everyone takes shortcuts. Even in professional science, no one reruns every experiment and verifies for themself through direct observation the results. That would take too long. The basis of social intelligence is evaluating proxies for direct observational evidence, i.e. experience. What people who use the term "SJW" mean when they use it is that someone evaluated the same indirect data in a different way from them, and this led to a disagreement and they are convinced that there is no way anyone could disagree with them. This is a pointless conversation.
    • Karunamon 10y ago
      >There is no such thing as "The SJW position". No one holds this position. As i said, other people claim that "SJW"s are irrational and reject empirical evidence. It is a word used to smear people by grouping them together in a category of "bad". There is no "SJW" manifesto or association of "SJW"s. A group of people sharing a number of beliefs and behaviors need not be centrally organized or hold all of the same beliefs or all of the same behaviors in order to be correctly reasoned about as a group. Here's an example of such a group: "Anti-vaxxers". People who think, despite all evidence to the contrary, that vaccines are harmful to human life. They parrot misinformation, refuse to engage with good faith criticism, and worse, foster an actual public health crisis because they won't get the shots and won't let their kids. The individual beliefs aren't always identical, or even coherent. Some think the vaccines are a government population control program. Some think that the science isn't in yet. Some think that because their friend's friend's cousin's dad's son had a bad reaction, that they're all harmful. (This addresses the "direct observational evidence" you mentioned, I think.) We still reason about those people as a group based on their actions: Refusing to be vaccinated, refusing to have their kids vaccinated. Should we stop doing so in some attempt to preserve some notion of philosophical/empirical purity, some notion of not offending these people, or should we address the health problem and call the willful ignorance what it is? >What people who use the term "SJW" mean when they use it is that someone evaluated the same indirect data in a different way from them I can only speak for myself here, but when I use that term, I refer to a brand of authoritarian left-leaning political behavior, one that is hostile to any non-agreement (disagree = blocked), one that actively parrots refuted statistics (wage gap), one that is perfectly okay with hateful behavior as long as it's directed at someone "more advantaged" than them. In other words, more actions than thoughts - but every action has a motivating thought.
• drdeca 10y ago
  Ah, see, I had interpreted the idea of an "arational person" as someone who holds some belief(s) which are neither rational nor irrational, something arational, not properly handled by reason (or something claimed to not be properly handled by reason). I wasn't thinking of it as meaning that a person is never rational. It is true that different people value different things, but I think moral realism is important and important to emphasize. (Not that people valuing different things contradicts moral realism at all, or even comes close to doing so, I'm just mentioning this because of connotations and ambiguity and such.) Perhaps it would be more precise ("well, actually..."?) to say that few who value rationality believe that they are currently behaving irrationally, or, for each of their lines of reasoning, believe that that particular reasoning is not irrational? I would think that most people accept the idea that they are sometimes irrational, though they would likely not be able to point out an example of where they themselves currently hold an irrational belief. (Because, if they could, they would probably not still have the belief? Or maybe they might keep it, but, they might just think that it is an arational belief?) But this trying to be more precise might not be particularly useful, as it might already be understood by all parties involved, idk.