4 ms·

Or they are just trying to get ahead of the argument and shut it down before it gets really uncomfortable. I don’t know how many times I have seen the “don’t d

Or they are just trying to get ahead of the argument and shut it down before it gets really uncomfortable. I don’t know how many times I have seen the “don’t do this” argument being propped up by a due to “can’t do this” argument. If you let these things run it’s course then it always ends up at the genetics/skull. And it’s always by people who clearly have no idea about what they are talking about and can’t actually point to any biological differences that would cause it, other than child birth... So it ends with “must be biological” because reasons, so “don’t do anything”. Seeing the same argument play out over and over, always ending at the same spot with no evidence is infuriating.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
> Or they are just trying to get ahead of the argument and shut it down before it gets really uncomfortable. That would make them not only anti-intellectual/pro-stupidity, but also assuming and acting in bad faith to shut down the discussion. A honest person would point out that the conversation makes them uncomfortable, and that they don't want to continue it. > If you let these things run it’s course then it always ends up at the genetics/skull. Except all the times it doesn't. Quite often, the conversation ends up being about voluntary preferences (people will e.g. point out that the weaker the economic pressures and the higher the freedom of choosing your own career, the more gender-segregated the job market becomes). Also, even if the discussion ends up at genetics, it's only ever a problem if one or both parties make the error of reasoning and passing judgements about individuals from population-level statistics. > So it ends with “must be biological” because reasons, so “don’t do anything”. It can be a valid and correct conclusion. If you starts by assuming something must be done, then there's no point in even having any discussion, because you've already made up your mind and seek justifications. It would be then best if you left the discussion to those who want to discover the truth about the issue. > Seeing the same argument play out over and over, always ending at the same spot with no evidence is infuriating. How can people tell, if they always shut the argument down beforehand with some underhanded maneuver like reading "don't do" and accusing the person of saying "can't do"?
- chillfox 7y ago
  Can’t say I have ever seen it play out any different, so I would assume that “quite often” to be exceptionally rare. People can tell if they have seen it lots of times before they start to shut it down. I would also argue that it makes them smart, not pro stupidity or anti intellectual. Let me try and use a tech analogy to explain it. Say you repeatedly see junior admins putting unsecured databases on the internet which subsequently get compromised. How many times do you need to see the beginnings of that event chain before you start intervening? Also there is nothing intellectual about entertaining the same argument over and over. Or do you also think we should seriously consider the flat earth argument every time someone brings it up.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    > People can tell if they have seen it lots of times before they start to shut it down. Yeah, I can buy that. So now please scroll to the top of the thread and see the topic - the question why some people don't want to discuss politics at work. Exactly because of that - because it very predictably leads to nothing good. But unlike the anti-intellectual position we're discussing in this corner of the thread, opposing political topics at work because of their inflammatory nature is a rational, consistent, and smart position. Nobody is telling a particular political position is wrong - just that work is not a right place for off-topic, highly emotional discussions. "Don't discuss politics at work" is the equivalent of "don't let junior admins manage public-facing databases with sensitive data without supervision". And as for the anti-intellectuals, the reason they like to do the "don't do/don't want to" -> "can't do" substitution is because without it, if viewed calmly and rationally, they would reveal themselves to be similar to anti-vaxxers, in terms of pushing positions unsubstantiated by evidence but emotionally appealing.
    - antisemiotic 7y ago
      >don't let junior admins manage public-facing databases with sensitive data without supervision Poor Yorick will never live it down, will he?
    - chillfox 7y ago

TeMPOraL 7y ago

> Or they are just trying to get ahead of the argument and shut it down before it gets really uncomfortable. That would make them not only anti-intellectual/pro-stupidity, but also assuming and acting in bad faith to shut down the discussion. A honest person would point out that the conversation makes them uncomfortable, and that they don't want to continue it. > If you let these things run it’s course then it always ends up at the genetics/skull. Except all the times it doesn't. Quite often, the conversation ends up being about voluntary preferences (people will e.g. point out that the weaker the economic pressures and the higher the freedom of choosing your own career, the more gender-segregated the job market becomes). Also, even if the discussion ends up at genetics, it's only ever a problem if one or both parties make the error of reasoning and passing judgements about individuals from population-level statistics. > So it ends with “must be biological” because reasons, so “don’t do anything”. It can be a valid and correct conclusion. If you starts by assuming something must be done, then there's no point in even having any discussion, because you've already made up your mind and seek justifications. It would be then best if you left the discussion to those who want to discover the truth about the issue. > Seeing the same argument play out over and over, always ending at the same spot with no evidence is infuriating. How can people tell, if they always shut the argument down beforehand with some underhanded maneuver like reading "don't do" and accusing the person of saying "can't do"?

chillfox 7y ago
Can’t say I have ever seen it play out any different, so I would assume that “quite often” to be exceptionally rare. People can tell if they have seen it lots of times before they start to shut it down. I would also argue that it makes them smart, not pro stupidity or anti intellectual. Let me try and use a tech analogy to explain it. Say you repeatedly see junior admins putting unsecured databases on the internet which subsequently get compromised. How many times do you need to see the beginnings of that event chain before you start intervening? Also there is nothing intellectual about entertaining the same argument over and over. Or do you also think we should seriously consider the flat earth argument every time someone brings it up.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  > People can tell if they have seen it lots of times before they start to shut it down. Yeah, I can buy that. So now please scroll to the top of the thread and see the topic - the question why some people don't want to discuss politics at work. Exactly because of that - because it very predictably leads to nothing good. But unlike the anti-intellectual position we're discussing in this corner of the thread, opposing political topics at work because of their inflammatory nature is a rational, consistent, and smart position. Nobody is telling a particular political position is wrong - just that work is not a right place for off-topic, highly emotional discussions. "Don't discuss politics at work" is the equivalent of "don't let junior admins manage public-facing databases with sensitive data without supervision". And as for the anti-intellectuals, the reason they like to do the "don't do/don't want to" -> "can't do" substitution is because without it, if viewed calmly and rationally, they would reveal themselves to be similar to anti-vaxxers, in terms of pushing positions unsubstantiated by evidence but emotionally appealing.
  - antisemiotic 7y ago
    >don't let junior admins manage public-facing databases with sensitive data without supervision Poor Yorick will never live it down, will he?
  - chillfox 7y ago