5 ms·

My strawperson-per-minute meter just pegged. Don't you find it unreflexive and ironic to dismiss their writings as rationalistically dismissive then proceed to

My strawperson-per-minute meter just pegged. Don't you find it unreflexive and ironic to dismiss their writings as rationalistically dismissive then proceed to nitpick denotative meanings? And how on Earth do you get that deploying a bigoted version of an existing word means the person who doesn't like getting targeted with it has no right to complain about it? For example, how do you feel about people who call women "cunts"? By your logic, objecting to that practice would be utterly bogus (not just bogus, mind you, but utterly bogus...), because the jerks doing it have a right to do it. In your logic, the bigoted, offensive term "cunts" is fine. Anyone complaining about getting called a "cunt" doesn't dislike the term, they just want to dismiss and mock the jerks calling them that... That's ridiculous. People who call women "cunts" are trying to verbally intimidate them through gendered, offensive references. And the same is true with people who label others "mansplainers." They're just offensive namecallers, trying to use sexual imagery to shame someone into shutting up, to demonstrate that they will go further in a conflict, that they have less to lose, and dare them to push back. Look, I kind of understand where you're coming from, tptacek. I've read a lot of the same social theory as you in grad school. I've read a lot of your writings here and elsewhere. And I object to mainstream society in a big way, too. And I object to a lot of the tech scene as well, from the huge bets on stupid tech to the path of tech from research to military to police to consumer. But take this from someone who wants to see you succeed: You're flipping out and not being persuasive. You're relying too much on trying to overwhelm people with big words from the literature and failing to communicate. You're letting yourself get triggered and losing the ability to relate to those who disagree with you and see two or more simultaneous perspectives in your mind at once. You're moving into all black and white territory, but you know reality isn't like that.

tptacek 10y ago
Once again: the word "patronize" means literally the same thing as "mansplain". It doesn't just have the same connotation. "Mansplain" is essentially the Newspeak version of "patronize". But nobody is infuriated by "patronize", either its meaning or its clear connotation, because "patronize" is mainstream standard written English, and thus presents no good opportunities to use otherization to deflect criticism. I don't know why you think I've been "triggered", but I assure you that I spent the next 4 minutes after writing that comment drawing a Trogdor-shaped United States to illustrate on Twitter one of Hillary Clinton's proposed campaign slogans, and I remember my emotional state during that effort far better than I do picking apart the dumb comment I replied to. But: I do appreciate the concern.
- diydsp 10y ago
  What's this about Newspeak: In my experience Newspeak was a dialect of language dictated by the illegitimate power structure to prevent the accidental communication of truthful expression which could undermine its authority. When you say "mansplain" is the Newspeak version of "patronize," that would make the gender-less "patronize" the unspeakable, but truthful expression... ...Yet it would upset the illegitimate authority to say "patronize," so the powers require us to use "mansplain" to not reveal the underlying, genderless truth? I think I relate to Winston Smith simply wanting a peaceful Red Barchetta cabin in the forest!
  - tptacek 10y ago
    You may have "Newspeak" confused with "Doublespeak" (or I may have denuded Newspeak of its political goals). Isn't the word "doublespeak" itself an instance of Newspeak (or Basic English)? Replacing a latinization with a pair of simpler words, for instance, is what has happened in the conversion from "patronize" to "mansplain". At any rate: the two words, patronize and mansplain, mean the same thing, so feigning offense at the gendering of "mansplain" is a pitiful way to build an argument.
    - makomk 10y ago
      Newspeak was a political tool that was supposed to limit society's freedom of though by making ideas that went against the ruling power's goals literally impossible to express. Think about how that might apply here - by replacing the genderless "patronize" with the gendered "mansplain"[1], we embed the idea that this is something only men do to women into the language itself. (Obviously this doesn't make it impossible to criticize other kinds of patronizing behaviour, just harder than with this kind - Newspeak was a fictional conceit.) [1] And yes, one is clearly gendered while the other one isn't. If someone claimed that you couldn't describe a woman as "patronizing" because that term only applied to men, this would seem like nonsense to any English speaker, whereas "mansplaining" was explicitly coined as something only men could do to women.
      - 10y ago

tptacek 10y ago

Once again: the word "patronize" means literally the same thing as "mansplain". It doesn't just have the same connotation. "Mansplain" is essentially the Newspeak version of "patronize". But nobody is infuriated by "patronize", either its meaning or its clear connotation, because "patronize" is mainstream standard written English, and thus presents no good opportunities to use otherization to deflect criticism. I don't know why you think I've been "triggered", but I assure you that I spent the next 4 minutes after writing that comment drawing a Trogdor-shaped United States to illustrate on Twitter one of Hillary Clinton's proposed campaign slogans, and I remember my emotional state during that effort far better than I do picking apart the dumb comment I replied to. But: I do appreciate the concern.

diydsp 10y ago
What's this about Newspeak: In my experience Newspeak was a dialect of language dictated by the illegitimate power structure to prevent the accidental communication of truthful expression which could undermine its authority. When you say "mansplain" is the Newspeak version of "patronize," that would make the gender-less "patronize" the unspeakable, but truthful expression... ...Yet it would upset the illegitimate authority to say "patronize," so the powers require us to use "mansplain" to not reveal the underlying, genderless truth? I think I relate to Winston Smith simply wanting a peaceful Red Barchetta cabin in the forest!
- tptacek 10y ago
  You may have "Newspeak" confused with "Doublespeak" (or I may have denuded Newspeak of its political goals). Isn't the word "doublespeak" itself an instance of Newspeak (or Basic English)? Replacing a latinization with a pair of simpler words, for instance, is what has happened in the conversion from "patronize" to "mansplain". At any rate: the two words, patronize and mansplain, mean the same thing, so feigning offense at the gendering of "mansplain" is a pitiful way to build an argument.
  - makomk 10y ago
    Newspeak was a political tool that was supposed to limit society's freedom of though by making ideas that went against the ruling power's goals literally impossible to express. Think about how that might apply here - by replacing the genderless "patronize" with the gendered "mansplain"[1], we embed the idea that this is something only men do to women into the language itself. (Obviously this doesn't make it impossible to criticize other kinds of patronizing behaviour, just harder than with this kind - Newspeak was a fictional conceit.) [1] And yes, one is clearly gendered while the other one isn't. If someone claimed that you couldn't describe a woman as "patronizing" because that term only applied to men, this would seem like nonsense to any English speaker, whereas "mansplaining" was explicitly coined as something only men could do to women.
    - 10y ago