5 ms·

> correcting the biases, conscious or not This insipid attitude was destructive when it first appeared during the academic "culture wars" of the 1980s. It's a

> correcting the biases, conscious or not This insipid attitude was destructive when it first appeared during the academic "culture wars" of the 1980s. It's also extremely authoritarian--everyone is already guilty, not merely of incorrect conscious thoughts, but also unconscious thoughts!

mcguire 8y ago
Please do not take a harsh tone towards other participants, and especially don't make personal attacks against them. Go out of your way to show that you are criticizing a statement, not a person. Please avoid statements about the presumed typical desires, capabilities or actions of some demographic group. They can offend people in that group, and they are always off-topic in GNU Project discussions.
- ThrowawayR2 8y ago
  No personal attacks were made; the posting individual was not even mentioned. Arguing against an opposing idea is permitted. No demographic groups were mentioned. Academics are not a demographic group, save possibly in the most academic possible interpretation of the word, and are certainly not a protected demographic group.
  - mcguire 8y ago
    Absolutely! The "insipid attitude" was never attributed to any person at all and no one supports "authoritarian" behavior.
    - ThrowawayR2 8y ago
      Sarcasm only works when it has a valid point to make. The "insipid attitude" and "authoritarian behavior" was attributed to a (non-protected) group. Now, it might be that the individual that the poster was replying to is an exemplar of that group but is the beliefs and behavior of the group as a whole that is being challenged, not the individual.
- hueving 8y ago
  A person wasn't even mentioned ...
  - ryanobjc 8y ago
    indirectly implied via the reference to the poster's attitude.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    They quoted the parent, and referred to what they said as being an "insipid attitude". To me, that's close enough as makes no difference.
KyleJ61782 8y ago
I think it's important to understand that while everyone has conscious and unconscious biases, it's not true that recognizing that fact is the same as assigning blame. The idea is to better know one's self, to try and understand one's own bias (to the best of one's ability, that is) in order to try and apply correctives when making decisions involving people who are different than we are. It's when we actively press into these biases that we hold and steadfastly cling to them in the face of contrary evidence that we become guilty. Now I'm not claiming that having bias is a good thing, it's quite the opposite. I am saying, however, that having bias does not imply culpability.
- defgeneric 8y ago
  This is fine as an ethics or description of good manners. The problem is that it is often turned into a politics. The logic of this kind of identitarian social critique, insofar as it becomes political, is decidedly illiberal. It is authoritarian. But all of this is nothing new! In fact it's about 30+ years old. It originates in the aftermath of the failed revolution of the 1960s--in other words, it appeared as a phenomenon of the dissolution of the New Left in the 1970s-1980s. Some see its origins in the Maoist practice of self-critique. I think it's better understood as the response to the realization that the New Left's politics was no longer viable--that its historical potential was completely exhausted.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    "The problem is that it is often turned into a politics." Everything is politics. Politics is part of everyone's life, and affects everyone's life. Some more than others, and some have the good fortune to not have to face that fact every day.
    - winston_smith 8y ago
      No, this attitude is harmful. First, because it dilutes the meaning of the word "politics", which describes something much more specific than "everything". And second, because as you point out in your last sentence, politics is something that can and should be kept separate from many aspects of life. Inviting politics where it does not belong particularly harms vulnerable populations, because politics is about the use of power and force. We agree to leave our politics at home in many realms of life, and this allows us to band together regardless of our political differences to prevent greedy and powerful people from exploiting those realms.

mcguire 8y ago

Please do not take a harsh tone towards other participants, and especially don't make personal attacks against them. Go out of your way to show that you are criticizing a statement, not a person. Please avoid statements about the presumed typical desires, capabilities or actions of some demographic group. They can offend people in that group, and they are always off-topic in GNU Project discussions.

ThrowawayR2 8y ago
No personal attacks were made; the posting individual was not even mentioned. Arguing against an opposing idea is permitted. No demographic groups were mentioned. Academics are not a demographic group, save possibly in the most academic possible interpretation of the word, and are certainly not a protected demographic group.
- mcguire 8y ago
  Absolutely! The "insipid attitude" was never attributed to any person at all and no one supports "authoritarian" behavior.
  - ThrowawayR2 8y ago
    Sarcasm only works when it has a valid point to make. The "insipid attitude" and "authoritarian behavior" was attributed to a (non-protected) group. Now, it might be that the individual that the poster was replying to is an exemplar of that group but is the beliefs and behavior of the group as a whole that is being challenged, not the individual.
hueving 8y ago
A person wasn't even mentioned ...
- ryanobjc 8y ago
  indirectly implied via the reference to the poster's attitude.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  They quoted the parent, and referred to what they said as being an "insipid attitude". To me, that's close enough as makes no difference.

KyleJ61782 8y ago

I think it's important to understand that while everyone has conscious and unconscious biases, it's not true that recognizing that fact is the same as assigning blame. The idea is to better know one's self, to try and understand one's own bias (to the best of one's ability, that is) in order to try and apply correctives when making decisions involving people who are different than we are. It's when we actively press into these biases that we hold and steadfastly cling to them in the face of contrary evidence that we become guilty. Now I'm not claiming that having bias is a good thing, it's quite the opposite. I am saying, however, that having bias does not imply culpability.

defgeneric 8y ago
This is fine as an ethics or description of good manners. The problem is that it is often turned into a politics. The logic of this kind of identitarian social critique, insofar as it becomes political, is decidedly illiberal. It is authoritarian. But all of this is nothing new! In fact it's about 30+ years old. It originates in the aftermath of the failed revolution of the 1960s--in other words, it appeared as a phenomenon of the dissolution of the New Left in the 1970s-1980s. Some see its origins in the Maoist practice of self-critique. I think it's better understood as the response to the realization that the New Left's politics was no longer viable--that its historical potential was completely exhausted.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  "The problem is that it is often turned into a politics." Everything is politics. Politics is part of everyone's life, and affects everyone's life. Some more than others, and some have the good fortune to not have to face that fact every day.
  - winston_smith 8y ago
    No, this attitude is harmful. First, because it dilutes the meaning of the word "politics", which describes something much more specific than "everything". And second, because as you point out in your last sentence, politics is something that can and should be kept separate from many aspects of life. Inviting politics where it does not belong particularly harms vulnerable populations, because politics is about the use of power and force. We agree to leave our politics at home in many realms of life, and this allows us to band together regardless of our political differences to prevent greedy and powerful people from exploiting those realms.