4 ms·

>"you should shut the fuck up, because you are male / white / heterosexual / cisgendered / wealthy / neurotypical / had good parents / some other form of privil

>"you should shut the fuck up, because you are male / white / heterosexual / cisgendered / wealthy / neurotypical / had good parents / some other form of privileged that I just thought up". Holy narratives bat man. That is such an inaccurate assessment of what is being discussed, I'd wager you have ulterior motivations for being so disingenuous. I feel like the "shut the fuck up" part of that is a complete misunderstanding of what happens when people who have secure livelihoods in whatever form attempt to "educate" or dismiss the complaints others have about the society they live in, even though the "educators" often have no experience with the hardships being discussed and don't see (and even worse, don't appreciate) the advantages that were given to them -- either due to aggregate "system" side-effects or just straight up inherited security (in its many forms). Or even worse, these "educators" can't even begin to abstractly reason why these complaints might have some merit. In other words, they aren't presenting arguments. There isn't some attempt to counter-reason with the complaints. The actual "shut the fuck up" comes from the "other" side, which strangely seemed to be entirely missed in your post. If you're going to try to use SJW-boogeyman talking points, just come out and do it. Don't try to dress up a turd with poorly used and understood philosophical nomenclature.

stult 9y ago
Are you... are you trying to prove his point? >Holy narratives batman Postmodern narrative analysis as gloss. >you have ulterior motives for being so disingenuous Straight into the ad hominem. >when people who have secure livelihoods in whatever form attempt to "educate" or dismiss the complaints others Some other form of privilege you just thought up.
- kadenshep 9y ago
  >Straight into the ad hominem. That's not an ad hominem. If you're going to use logical fallacies you had best understand what they are. And don't try to partially quote me to make my statements seem more definitive than they were presented. Nothing I said even remotely resembles what his point was attempting to state. And I definitely didn't just construct some random form of privilege there. What is the point of your response to my post?
  - Ygg2 9y ago
    > That's not an ad hominem. It absolutely is. You are attacking the person, not his argument.
    - kadenshep 9y ago
      The credibility of his own perspective on this matter is pretty fundamental to the basis of his perspective and his quote. I'm not taking to disparate events or characteristics and using it to dismiss what he's saying, quite the opposite actually -- I'm saying he's dismissing others, poorly understands what is actually being discussed, and is "misquoting" what other people are actually stating. It's not a fallacy. I could have called it ignorance, but that'd require he demonstrate some unfamiliarity with the subject, which he clearly isn't all that unfamiliar with it. It is strange that his his "quote" is getting a free pass, despite it not having any backing to it what so ever. Have a good read: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html
      - Ygg2 9y ago
        > The credibility of his own perspective on this matter is pretty fundamental to the basis of his perspective and his quote Why? OP claimed to see people on left-wing side use this tactic (and assuming he is telling the truth) how is his/her perspective shifted? The OP stated left wing tactics boils down to: "You're view doesn't count since your aren't black/trans/queer/female enough". Your message was almost, "Your view shouldn't count because of your perspective". Personally, I've seen the same argument be used (i.e. "Shut up cis/hetero/male/white/etc.") in various forms on various forums. It would not surprise me that it's used in Democratic circles, in some shape or form.
        kadenshep 9y ago
        >The OP stated left wing tactics boils down to: "You're view doesn't count since your aren't black/trans/queer/female enough". That's the thing. It isn't that. It has never been that. No one says that. No where in academia does it even approach that. He whimsically went back and forth between pretending to address philosophical tenets and then right in the very core part of his statement, just slapped in a mischaracterization of entire philosophical and anthropological field. He didn't even pretend to transition or weasel that in, he just did it full stop. This conversation is annoying to have because it always devolves into this meta-argument, because people's egos get involved. Try doing that with any other less "fuzzy" subject and people would immediately and rightly call you out on it. Which I did. > Your message was almost, "Your view shouldn't count because of your perspective". No, my message was specifically and has been repeatedly his "view" is a complete mischaracterization of both the philosophical and social anthropology view points this subject brushes upon. Which is totally and blindingly ironic given his "shut the fuck up" quote. This is where one might get told "to shut the fuck up", as you would in any other discussion on any other subject, when you want to waltz around and wave your own very personal view point around (without any solid basis) when serious subjects are attempting to be discussed. It's a double whammy in that case, because people might realize that you're fully unwilling to reason about your own and other's position in society. >Personally, I've seen the same argument be used (i.e. "Shut up cis/hetero/male/white/etc.") in various forms on various forums. It would not surprise me that it's used in Democratic circles, in some shape or form. If we're going to use anecdotes and SJW-boogeyman talking points, then don't pretend that you're addressing philosophical tenets. Just go ahead and do it. As I said in my original post.
traverseda 9y ago
Seems pretty accurate as far as my experiences have been, and I can point to a number of prominent cases in the open-source community that looked an awful lot like that.
- kadenshep 9y ago
  Which one is pretty accurate? The post I was replying to or my post? In either case I'd be interested in any number of prominent cases in the open source community that are relevant to the current discussion.
dahoramanodoceu 9y ago
It's not inaccurate. there is almost always an element of intimidation. We're dealing with a problem of unjust exclusion through intimidation and violence. The SJW solution? Exclude white male cis from social participation through violence and intimidation. Not a working path. That won't work. Read the first 10 pages of Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Freire. He talks about the folly of the oppressed that seek liberation by emulating the destructive behaviors of their oppressors. He explains that the oppressor is confined in his role and cannot be expected, even by force, to change. He/She (the oppressor) must be liberated from the cycle of ignorance, fear, and suffeung by the oppressed. I tend to agree. It fits with what we've seen in history. It makes sense morally. It also aligns with almost every single moral teaching in the world.
- kadenshep 9y ago
  >It's not inaccurate. there is almost always an element of intimidation Is there any way you can back this up in some solid, less qualitative manner? I understand the broadness of what is being discussed, but I've never seen this talking point come to fruition in any relevant manner. It's always a mischaracterization (normally designed to appeal to outrage "consumers") whenever I look deeper to any specific incident that gets presented as "exclusion through intimidation and violence"

stult 9y ago

Are you... are you trying to prove his point? >Holy narratives batman Postmodern narrative analysis as gloss. >you have ulterior motives for being so disingenuous Straight into the ad hominem. >when people who have secure livelihoods in whatever form attempt to "educate" or dismiss the complaints others Some other form of privilege you just thought up.

kadenshep 9y ago
>Straight into the ad hominem. That's not an ad hominem. If you're going to use logical fallacies you had best understand what they are. And don't try to partially quote me to make my statements seem more definitive than they were presented. Nothing I said even remotely resembles what his point was attempting to state. And I definitely didn't just construct some random form of privilege there. What is the point of your response to my post?
- Ygg2 9y ago
  > That's not an ad hominem. It absolutely is. You are attacking the person, not his argument.
  - kadenshep 9y ago
    The credibility of his own perspective on this matter is pretty fundamental to the basis of his perspective and his quote. I'm not taking to disparate events or characteristics and using it to dismiss what he's saying, quite the opposite actually -- I'm saying he's dismissing others, poorly understands what is actually being discussed, and is "misquoting" what other people are actually stating. It's not a fallacy. I could have called it ignorance, but that'd require he demonstrate some unfamiliarity with the subject, which he clearly isn't all that unfamiliar with it. It is strange that his his "quote" is getting a free pass, despite it not having any backing to it what so ever. Have a good read: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html
    - Ygg2 9y ago
      > The credibility of his own perspective on this matter is pretty fundamental to the basis of his perspective and his quote Why? OP claimed to see people on left-wing side use this tactic (and assuming he is telling the truth) how is his/her perspective shifted? The OP stated left wing tactics boils down to: "You're view doesn't count since your aren't black/trans/queer/female enough". Your message was almost, "Your view shouldn't count because of your perspective". Personally, I've seen the same argument be used (i.e. "Shut up cis/hetero/male/white/etc.") in various forms on various forums. It would not surprise me that it's used in Democratic circles, in some shape or form.
      - kadenshep 9y ago
        >The OP stated left wing tactics boils down to: "You're view doesn't count since your aren't black/trans/queer/female enough". That's the thing. It isn't that. It has never been that. No one says that. No where in academia does it even approach that. He whimsically went back and forth between pretending to address philosophical tenets and then right in the very core part of his statement, just slapped in a mischaracterization of entire philosophical and anthropological field. He didn't even pretend to transition or weasel that in, he just did it full stop. This conversation is annoying to have because it always devolves into this meta-argument, because people's egos get involved. Try doing that with any other less "fuzzy" subject and people would immediately and rightly call you out on it. Which I did. > Your message was almost, "Your view shouldn't count because of your perspective". No, my message was specifically and has been repeatedly his "view" is a complete mischaracterization of both the philosophical and social anthropology view points this subject brushes upon. Which is totally and blindingly ironic given his "shut the fuck up" quote. This is where one might get told "to shut the fuck up", as you would in any other discussion on any other subject, when you want to waltz around and wave your own very personal view point around (without any solid basis) when serious subjects are attempting to be discussed. It's a double whammy in that case, because people might realize that you're fully unwilling to reason about your own and other's position in society. >Personally, I've seen the same argument be used (i.e. "Shut up cis/hetero/male/white/etc.") in various forms on various forums. It would not surprise me that it's used in Democratic circles, in some shape or form. If we're going to use anecdotes and SJW-boogeyman talking points, then don't pretend that you're addressing philosophical tenets. Just go ahead and do it. As I said in my original post.

traverseda 9y ago

Seems pretty accurate as far as my experiences have been, and I can point to a number of prominent cases in the open-source community that looked an awful lot like that.

kadenshep 9y ago
Which one is pretty accurate? The post I was replying to or my post? In either case I'd be interested in any number of prominent cases in the open source community that are relevant to the current discussion.

dahoramanodoceu 9y ago

It's not inaccurate. there is almost always an element of intimidation. We're dealing with a problem of unjust exclusion through intimidation and violence. The SJW solution? Exclude white male cis from social participation through violence and intimidation. Not a working path. That won't work. Read the first 10 pages of Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Freire. He talks about the folly of the oppressed that seek liberation by emulating the destructive behaviors of their oppressors. He explains that the oppressor is confined in his role and cannot be expected, even by force, to change. He/She (the oppressor) must be liberated from the cycle of ignorance, fear, and suffeung by the oppressed. I tend to agree. It fits with what we've seen in history. It makes sense morally. It also aligns with almost every single moral teaching in the world.

kadenshep 9y ago
>It's not inaccurate. there is almost always an element of intimidation Is there any way you can back this up in some solid, less qualitative manner? I understand the broadness of what is being discussed, but I've never seen this talking point come to fruition in any relevant manner. It's always a mischaracterization (normally designed to appeal to outrage "consumers") whenever I look deeper to any specific incident that gets presented as "exclusion through intimidation and violence"