4 ms·

Your comment strikes me as disingenuous and willfully obstinate. disingenuous (adj) giving a false appearance of simple frankness obstinate (adj) pertinacious

Your comment strikes me as disingenuous and willfully obstinate. disingenuous (adj) giving a false appearance of simple frankness obstinate (adj) pertinaciously adhering to an opinion pertinacious (adj) marked by an unyieldingly persistent fixedness (as of opinion, purpose, action) that is often annoyingly perverse in fact or in appearance It looks like you simply googled those words and copy-pasted the definitions. I can do that, too (using a more credible dictionary vis-a-vis American usage, to boot. Mine’s MW, yours is Oxford, which is very British; we’re discussing an American company): white supremacy (n) the social, economic, and political systems that collectively enable white people to maintain power over people of other races defund (v) to withdraw funding from (as a government-funded program) This isn’t a helpful approach. Prescriptivist appeals to the dictionary and dismissal of others’ viewpoints are not ways of listening to the perspectives of others or empathizing with different experiences, and seem to be actively preventing constructive discussion in this case.

shard972 5y ago
@dang flamebaiting against the rules! Oy vey shut it down
bhupy 5y ago
> This isn’t a helpful approach. Prescriptivist appeals to the dictionary and dismissal of others’ viewpoints are not ways of listening to the perspectives of others or empathizing with different experiences, and seem to be actively preventing constructive discussion in this case. Agreed. On the flip side, I think it’s just as unhelpful an approach to co-opt a generally understood word (or phrase) and then (unbeknownst to the majority of peers) expand its definition to capture even mainstream behavior that might be construed as undesirable even if not obviously unacceptable, and then beat the same peers in the head with it when they express confusion at the changed meaning of words (or phrases). It’s a cheap rhetorical trick, and gets us further away from collaboratively solving very real and important problems in a pluralistic society.
- michaericalribo 5y ago
  I hear you. It can be counterproductive to use a totally unfamiliar jargon, especially if it trips the audience up and limits mutual engagement in favor of linguistic squabbling. That said, I respectfully disagree that it’s “just as unhelpful.” Pedantry over definitions distracts from the underlying issues, while new and inventive and nonstandard usage of language can spur critical analysis and jolt us out of our familiar understanding. Telling someone “defund isn’t used that way” shuts down the conversation. Demanding we “defund the police” makes me want to start / pursue / expand the conversation: what the heck do you mean by that? Edit to add: my response sounds overly academic. Another way to put it could be: language is confusing, and it can be problematic if we make it more confusing. But, sometimes I need to get a bit more confused before I can see things in a new / different light, and language can be an effective tool to achieve that “good confusion”
  - bhupy 5y ago
    > Pedantry over definitions distracts from the underlying issues, while new and inventive and nonstandard usage of language can spur critical analysis and jolt us out of our familiar understanding. I understand that that’s the intention behind this strategy, but in practice it actually comes off as a shock-and-awe guerrilla tactic to argumentation that alienates rather than invite collaboration. Again, if the goal is actually to get people to buy into new ideas, attacking them (which is implicitly what happens when you expansively redefine “white supremacy”) is just not a good strategy. > Telling someone “defund isn’t used that way” shuts down the conversation. Right, and it sounds like the goal is to maintain open conversation! Constantly demanding that people use your definitions and argue with you on the terms that you unilaterally set is an awful way to maintain open dialogue/conversation with people that might otherwise be open to changing their minds. Insisting that people simply must accept whatever new rules of engagement is en vogue just exacerbates polarization and mistrust. So yes, it’s just as, if not more unhelpful.
    - michaericalribo 5y ago
      > shock-and-awe guerrilla tactic…that alienates rather than invite collaboration That’s a good point, and I’m not sure I have a good answer to it! I believe rhetorical guerrilla warfare is an intentional and important tactic. My gut tells me part of the goal is precisely to make me and others like me feel uncomfortable: I generally have the freedom to not feel alienated, but that’s not a privilege afforded to vast swaths of our society who are historically disadvantaged. I can only imagine the alienation I would feel as a Black engineer—but as a White engineer, I feel right at home on my team of other White engineers, and alienation is something I can just choose to walk away from. Not so for others… Still, I know that’s not a satisfying answer / response to your comment. You’re right that feeling alienated doesn’t make me more inclined to have open minded / collaborative discussions, in general. But given the structural imbalances at play, I emotionally feel that the graceful and “right” way for me to engage is by listening despite my discomfort, as a tool for learning the perspectives of others not just theoretically, but experientially. :shrug: None of this is easy…but it’s important to me to pursue mutual care and understanding with as much good faith as I can muster, even when it’s uncomfortable for me.

shard972 5y ago

@dang flamebaiting against the rules! Oy vey shut it down

bhupy 5y ago

> This isn’t a helpful approach. Prescriptivist appeals to the dictionary and dismissal of others’ viewpoints are not ways of listening to the perspectives of others or empathizing with different experiences, and seem to be actively preventing constructive discussion in this case. Agreed. On the flip side, I think it’s just as unhelpful an approach to co-opt a generally understood word (or phrase) and then (unbeknownst to the majority of peers) expand its definition to capture even mainstream behavior that might be construed as undesirable even if not obviously unacceptable, and then beat the same peers in the head with it when they express confusion at the changed meaning of words (or phrases). It’s a cheap rhetorical trick, and gets us further away from collaboratively solving very real and important problems in a pluralistic society.

michaericalribo 5y ago
I hear you. It can be counterproductive to use a totally unfamiliar jargon, especially if it trips the audience up and limits mutual engagement in favor of linguistic squabbling. That said, I respectfully disagree that it’s “just as unhelpful.” Pedantry over definitions distracts from the underlying issues, while new and inventive and nonstandard usage of language can spur critical analysis and jolt us out of our familiar understanding. Telling someone “defund isn’t used that way” shuts down the conversation. Demanding we “defund the police” makes me want to start / pursue / expand the conversation: what the heck do you mean by that? Edit to add: my response sounds overly academic. Another way to put it could be: language is confusing, and it can be problematic if we make it more confusing. But, sometimes I need to get a bit more confused before I can see things in a new / different light, and language can be an effective tool to achieve that “good confusion”
- bhupy 5y ago
  > Pedantry over definitions distracts from the underlying issues, while new and inventive and nonstandard usage of language can spur critical analysis and jolt us out of our familiar understanding. I understand that that’s the intention behind this strategy, but in practice it actually comes off as a shock-and-awe guerrilla tactic to argumentation that alienates rather than invite collaboration. Again, if the goal is actually to get people to buy into new ideas, attacking them (which is implicitly what happens when you expansively redefine “white supremacy”) is just not a good strategy. > Telling someone “defund isn’t used that way” shuts down the conversation. Right, and it sounds like the goal is to maintain open conversation! Constantly demanding that people use your definitions and argue with you on the terms that you unilaterally set is an awful way to maintain open dialogue/conversation with people that might otherwise be open to changing their minds. Insisting that people simply must accept whatever new rules of engagement is en vogue just exacerbates polarization and mistrust. So yes, it’s just as, if not more unhelpful.
  - michaericalribo 5y ago
    > shock-and-awe guerrilla tactic…that alienates rather than invite collaboration That’s a good point, and I’m not sure I have a good answer to it! I believe rhetorical guerrilla warfare is an intentional and important tactic. My gut tells me part of the goal is precisely to make me and others like me feel uncomfortable: I generally have the freedom to not feel alienated, but that’s not a privilege afforded to vast swaths of our society who are historically disadvantaged. I can only imagine the alienation I would feel as a Black engineer—but as a White engineer, I feel right at home on my team of other White engineers, and alienation is something I can just choose to walk away from. Not so for others… Still, I know that’s not a satisfying answer / response to your comment. You’re right that feeling alienated doesn’t make me more inclined to have open minded / collaborative discussions, in general. But given the structural imbalances at play, I emotionally feel that the graceful and “right” way for me to engage is by listening despite my discomfort, as a tool for learning the perspectives of others not just theoretically, but experientially. :shrug: None of this is easy…but it’s important to me to pursue mutual care and understanding with as much good faith as I can muster, even when it’s uncomfortable for me.