6 ms·

There are at least 3 other HN threads where people are deliberately misrepresenting what he wrote and implying malicious intent where none existed. Can we at l

There are at least 3 other HN threads where people are deliberately misrepresenting what he wrote and implying malicious intent where none existed. Can we at least keep this one for substantive meta-commentary?

sidlls 9y ago
Implicit in your comment is that any suggestion of malicious intent by the author is not substantive. That doesn't seem reasonable, given the context.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  I think discussing implicit things in such context should be considered harmful. We should limit ourselves to considering only the original text at face value - because it's too easy for anyone to read their own implicit meaning into the text that reflects their own biases.
  - sidlls 9y ago
    The context of this discussion, diversity in gender and race, already contains a lot of implicit meaning in the form of the historical development of the culture of discrimination. It's not at all harmful to acknowledge the long, deep history of the use of dog whistle language and malicious intent disguised as thoughtful rhetoric, especially by those who are in the position of power (men, whites, and especially white men).
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      No. This is precisely why we're stuck where we are in the first place. If you allow people to call "dog whistle language" and attribute "malicious intent disguised as thoughtful rethoric", you give everyone a fully general counterargument against anything. I could accuse you right now of using "dog whistle language" and there's literally nothing you can do to prove me wrong. Those ideas are conversational equivalent of bioweapons. Once people start to use them, everyone loses.
      - sidlls 9y ago
        No, that's not at all how dog whistle rhetoric applies. Please see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics and particularly the section on the US. What you're doing is, ironically, actually an attempt to shut down discussion. You're basically saying that an entire 50+ year historical record of politics in America isn't appropriate to bring up because, you claim, it might be used inappropriately to simply shut down debate.
      - kaden 9y ago
        >This is precisely why we're stuck where we are in the first place. No it isn't. It's a failure to acknowledge the reality of society we live and the language that powers and enables the status quo. It's an uncomfortable truth and one that has been painstakingly dug up over decades, but for every two steps forward on this subject the powers that be cause us to take one step back. Your unwillingness to substantially acknowledge such realities is what is stagnating this conversation, because certain ideas and solutions need to be repeated over and over again and sometimes re-branded to make it more appealing to people who don't want to address the problems present in our society. Here we have a "memo" that uses credible science but has conclusions and ideas completely detached from that science, and then when it is pointed out how incredibly shit his conclusions are, it suddenly becomes an issue about "free speech." It's pretty akin to the whole "states rights" branding that happens with certain other political conversations. It IS dog-whistle language and utilizing such language while pretending you're not, and even worse pretending like you're actually making a point, is incredibly counter-productive to advancing anywhere on gender/sexual issues for everyone. It's dishonest at worst and ignorant at best. This whole topic has PG's psuedo-philosophical musing's stink all over it and it's quite nauseating to have to dig through it. It's the bullshit asymmetry principle in action.
- whytaka 9y ago
  That's not implied in what they said at all. It takes quite a bit of imagination to make that leap from 3 to all.

sidlls 9y ago

Implicit in your comment is that any suggestion of malicious intent by the author is not substantive. That doesn't seem reasonable, given the context.

TeMPOraL 9y ago
I think discussing implicit things in such context should be considered harmful. We should limit ourselves to considering only the original text at face value - because it's too easy for anyone to read their own implicit meaning into the text that reflects their own biases.
- sidlls 9y ago
  The context of this discussion, diversity in gender and race, already contains a lot of implicit meaning in the form of the historical development of the culture of discrimination. It's not at all harmful to acknowledge the long, deep history of the use of dog whistle language and malicious intent disguised as thoughtful rhetoric, especially by those who are in the position of power (men, whites, and especially white men).
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    No. This is precisely why we're stuck where we are in the first place. If you allow people to call "dog whistle language" and attribute "malicious intent disguised as thoughtful rethoric", you give everyone a fully general counterargument against anything. I could accuse you right now of using "dog whistle language" and there's literally nothing you can do to prove me wrong. Those ideas are conversational equivalent of bioweapons. Once people start to use them, everyone loses.
    - sidlls 9y ago
      No, that's not at all how dog whistle rhetoric applies. Please see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics and particularly the section on the US. What you're doing is, ironically, actually an attempt to shut down discussion. You're basically saying that an entire 50+ year historical record of politics in America isn't appropriate to bring up because, you claim, it might be used inappropriately to simply shut down debate.
    - kaden 9y ago
      >This is precisely why we're stuck where we are in the first place. No it isn't. It's a failure to acknowledge the reality of society we live and the language that powers and enables the status quo. It's an uncomfortable truth and one that has been painstakingly dug up over decades, but for every two steps forward on this subject the powers that be cause us to take one step back. Your unwillingness to substantially acknowledge such realities is what is stagnating this conversation, because certain ideas and solutions need to be repeated over and over again and sometimes re-branded to make it more appealing to people who don't want to address the problems present in our society. Here we have a "memo" that uses credible science but has conclusions and ideas completely detached from that science, and then when it is pointed out how incredibly shit his conclusions are, it suddenly becomes an issue about "free speech." It's pretty akin to the whole "states rights" branding that happens with certain other political conversations. It IS dog-whistle language and utilizing such language while pretending you're not, and even worse pretending like you're actually making a point, is incredibly counter-productive to advancing anywhere on gender/sexual issues for everyone. It's dishonest at worst and ignorant at best. This whole topic has PG's psuedo-philosophical musing's stink all over it and it's quite nauseating to have to dig through it. It's the bullshit asymmetry principle in action.
whytaka 9y ago
That's not implied in what they said at all. It takes quite a bit of imagination to make that leap from 3 to all.