4 ms·

As an Economist reader who sometimes scratches his head at how late they are to the party, I love your framing here. I appreciate their sobriety though.

omegaworks 5y ago
From the very first paragraph: >(trans-exclusionary radical feminist, a slur) Bigots offended at being called out on their bigotry. The Economist reveals their bias and their stake in the debate by asserting that "terf is a slur" and later by representing "gender critical" ideologies as "mainstream." It's plainly irresponsible journalism and not at all sober.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- primax 5y ago
  The Economist always publishes their articles as from 'The Economist'. This is standard practice, not something new and 'allowed'.
- fefe23 5y ago
  That sounds like you are not contesting that it's a slur. You just think the slurred party deserves it.
  - lukebitts 5y ago
    It doesn't sound like that at all to me. Also, they ARE trans-exclusionary and they ARE radical feminists. I don't buy that a simple description is a slur.
    - baryphonic 5y ago
      Okay, let's accept this framing for the sake of argument. Does the n-word then merely refer to dark color? I think not. It's obviously used as a slur and a way to shut people up. Reductionism to etymology or literal interpretation do not change that fact.
      - lukebitts 5y ago
        The n-word is a slur, yes, that has no bearing on whether other words are slurs or not. Do you have a point or should I just accept that whatever word you deem a slur, is one?
        baryphonic 5y ago
        I did a quick search of Twitter.[0] Lots of uses of "TERF" and all of them have extremely negative connotations. "TERF" is equated with transphobia, "hate"/"hate speech," bigotry and even an intention to murder. I'm not sure how specifically you would define "slur," and I'd be curious to learn, but to my mind "a word used almost universally to defame and cast hyperbolic, inaccurate aspersions on an outgroup" seems like a reasonable working definition that encapsulates all other slurs as well as this one. [0] https://mobile.twitter.com/search?q=TERF&src=typed_query https://mobile.twitter.com/search?q=TERF&src=typed_query
        lukebitts 5y ago
        Yes, I disagree with that definition of slur, the bar is too low if that's all it takes. In my opinion a history of oppression is what matters and if we go by how twitter uses a word, "Karen" and "Boomer" would be slurs too.
        lou1306 5y ago
        Aren't "Karens" subject to oppression by the patriarchy, though?
        lukebitts 5y ago
        Obviously Karens are not subjected to oppression, woman may be oppressed, but Karens are not all woman and are not oppressed as a social class. Though I supose from their point of view, asking for basic decency is akin to oppression. Fitting, considering the original topic.
- dbsmith83 5y ago
  > By allowing the author to hide behind anonymity it reveals The Economist's biases and their stake in the debate by asserting that "terf is a slur" and representing "gender critical" ideologies as "mainstream." Why do you wish the author was named--so you can have their head? You sound like the people in the article trying to stifle debate
  - washadjeffmad 5y ago
    There are plenty of great reasons why author's in reputable publications should (and shouldn't) be identified. I frequently track threads by journalist in order to understand bias. For instance, when I see scathing articles about Bernie Sanders being America's greatest enemy appear across ostensibly venerated and elite publications, I can look up an author's catalog of published work and discover that they are eg- an old money heiress and New England socialite with deeply vested interest in not reforming or regulating causes of wealth inequality who frequently publishes to centrist and liberal-right outlets. Once patterns are identified, other journalists can research and report on what those publications, their editors, or their journalists are attempting to manufacture. Caught early, before they become quoted sources and internally promoted voices of authority, the public has a better chance at gleaning who the real stakeholders are. Anyway, it was recently identified that reassignment surgery costs around $150,000, and at a rate of roughly 1% of the population, that's a multi-billion dollar market without established brand loyalty. The corporations that capture that are expected to be well served.
    - raxxorrax 5y ago
      I agree. In this case, I think anonymity is useful and valid though.

omegaworks 5y ago

From the very first paragraph: >(trans-exclusionary radical feminist, a slur) Bigots offended at being called out on their bigotry. The Economist reveals their bias and their stake in the debate by asserting that "terf is a slur" and later by representing "gender critical" ideologies as "mainstream." It's plainly irresponsible journalism and not at all sober.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
primax 5y ago
The Economist always publishes their articles as from 'The Economist'. This is standard practice, not something new and 'allowed'.
fefe23 5y ago
That sounds like you are not contesting that it's a slur. You just think the slurred party deserves it.
- lukebitts 5y ago
  It doesn't sound like that at all to me. Also, they ARE trans-exclusionary and they ARE radical feminists. I don't buy that a simple description is a slur.
  - baryphonic 5y ago
    Okay, let's accept this framing for the sake of argument. Does the n-word then merely refer to dark color? I think not. It's obviously used as a slur and a way to shut people up. Reductionism to etymology or literal interpretation do not change that fact.
    - lukebitts 5y ago
      The n-word is a slur, yes, that has no bearing on whether other words are slurs or not. Do you have a point or should I just accept that whatever word you deem a slur, is one?
      - baryphonic 5y ago
        I did a quick search of Twitter.[0] Lots of uses of "TERF" and all of them have extremely negative connotations. "TERF" is equated with transphobia, "hate"/"hate speech," bigotry and even an intention to murder. I'm not sure how specifically you would define "slur," and I'd be curious to learn, but to my mind "a word used almost universally to defame and cast hyperbolic, inaccurate aspersions on an outgroup" seems like a reasonable working definition that encapsulates all other slurs as well as this one. [0] https://mobile.twitter.com/search?q=TERF&src=typed_query https://mobile.twitter.com/search?q=TERF&src=typed_query
        lukebitts 5y ago
        Yes, I disagree with that definition of slur, the bar is too low if that's all it takes. In my opinion a history of oppression is what matters and if we go by how twitter uses a word, "Karen" and "Boomer" would be slurs too.
        lou1306 5y ago
        Aren't "Karens" subject to oppression by the patriarchy, though?
        lukebitts 5y ago
        Obviously Karens are not subjected to oppression, woman may be oppressed, but Karens are not all woman and are not oppressed as a social class. Though I supose from their point of view, asking for basic decency is akin to oppression. Fitting, considering the original topic.
dbsmith83 5y ago
> By allowing the author to hide behind anonymity it reveals The Economist's biases and their stake in the debate by asserting that "terf is a slur" and representing "gender critical" ideologies as "mainstream." Why do you wish the author was named--so you can have their head? You sound like the people in the article trying to stifle debate
- washadjeffmad 5y ago
  There are plenty of great reasons why author's in reputable publications should (and shouldn't) be identified. I frequently track threads by journalist in order to understand bias. For instance, when I see scathing articles about Bernie Sanders being America's greatest enemy appear across ostensibly venerated and elite publications, I can look up an author's catalog of published work and discover that they are eg- an old money heiress and New England socialite with deeply vested interest in not reforming or regulating causes of wealth inequality who frequently publishes to centrist and liberal-right outlets. Once patterns are identified, other journalists can research and report on what those publications, their editors, or their journalists are attempting to manufacture. Caught early, before they become quoted sources and internally promoted voices of authority, the public has a better chance at gleaning who the real stakeholders are. Anyway, it was recently identified that reassignment surgery costs around $150,000, and at a rate of roughly 1% of the population, that's a multi-billion dollar market without established brand loyalty. The corporations that capture that are expected to be well served.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    I agree. In this case, I think anonymity is useful and valid though.