4 ms·
I'm surprised that nobody noticed that you demonstrate the technique in your own article! "1. Find an argument that is disagreeable." Somebody does not agree
by TelmoMenezes 8y ago
I'm surprised that nobody noticed that you demonstrate the technique in your own article!
"1. Find an argument that is disagreeable."
Somebody does not agree that people should expect others to remember their preferred pronouns.
"2. Derive an underlying principle behind it. This must appear civil and reasonable at all costs as it gives you credibility. At all costs, do not engage with the actual argument."
This is the article itself, which is framing the discussion as an exposure on how people win a discussion by using a certain dark strategy (this is the really clever meta move!)
"3. Extend the principle to a plausible real world absurdity to demonstrate its impracticality."
A 7-point bullet-point list is provided, culminating on the suggestion that people who are pronoun-conservative possibly also want to commit genocide against gay people and Jews.
"4. Use this absurdity to: tear down the argument; or appeal to a slippery slope; or directly ask the original author to defend."
The subtle escalation along the bullet-point list is very clever, it slowly "boils the frog", distracting the reader from the slippery slope argument contained therein.
"5. At all costs, do not propose an alternate solution which would reveal the true intentions for doing this. That cannot be revealed."
Yup.
To illustrate what a more nuanced compromise might look like, I disclose my own position on this matter:
If somebody tells me that me addressing them with a given pronoun is important to them, I will make my best effort. At the same time, my brain has been primed by decades of following the convention of choosing pronouns based on perceived gender, so I also expect to be excused if I forget, and for the person to consider that I might be tired or have bad memory, instead of assuming malice on my part.
"6. If anyone else replies to counter or patch holes, repeat the steps at the top."
I guess I'm the one playing that role here. Your move. :)
- cjslep 8y agoHaha, you're the first to try to apply it recursively! That's kind of why I employed satire, to make people think. My move is simple. Do nothing. My satire fails its own test when applied to itself as I make clear what I am looking for and what is unacceptable, emphasized with satire. I clearly value an argument when folks make a good faith effort to argue for an alternative position, make constructive criticism, elaborate on the source of their concerns, or reveal their intentions. No hidden intentions from me. As for the example: I thought the satire had made it very clear that the alternate solution is to have the would-be-saboteur reveal their alternate position, make constructive criticism, elaborate on the source of their concerns (ex: like you've done above), or reveal their intentions. So my satire also fails my own test that way. Again, no hidden intentions, clear alternatives. Since you made your position clear, we can now have a constructive argument about a myriad of things: the role of perceived gender in society, cultural norms, morality of honest mistakes, etc. And I don't have to be guessing a position on your behalf while also defending a position I never took. If you let me pick for you, and you pick for me, that's not a discussion. It's basically a giant post about intellectual honesty and good faith discussions.
- TelmoMenezes 8y agoYou say "no move", but you made a good one. I concede the point. Thanks for being a good sport.
- cjslep 8y agoThanks for making me think more on the topic -- I especially loved the recursion which forced me to reflect on a whole new and weird level.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]