2 ms·

I feel as though your appeal to censorship is emboldened by your sense that I have enfringed on some social code regarding sexism. I appreciate your counter an

I feel as though your appeal to censorship is emboldened by your sense that I have enfringed on some social code regarding sexism. I appreciate your counter anecdata, and I recognize that it offers a counter argument to my assertions. I don't think that means we should take my post down. Do you truly believe that? Do you believe in such limiting of speech? Have I committed a thought crime by thinking that using up speak during a presentation is a defense mechanism? Is it possible I am sometimes right? I hold that it's possible that I am sometimes wrong. Do you allow that perhaps I am sometimes right? Do you think this post should be taken down too? Are you able to introspect on your social groups usage of upspeak and ponder a reason as to it's origin? Perhaps it's advertising a set of values?

WorkLobster 5y ago
Apologies if my earlier post came off as peevish. I would not want your comment to be removed, and to my mind there is nothing sexist about it. I am just constantly surprised that, in a community that seems to pride itself on putative rationality, we often end up swimming in reductive "just-so" stories that co-incidentally agree with the cynical take du jour. I did pick on yours, which is partially bad luck, but also the idea that the voodoo you mention is so comprehensive and airtight that it can diagnose me and everyone I know over the internet with approval-seeking seems particularly ludicrous. I don't want to dump on your idea too much. It's very possible there's a kernel of truth to it—I know I have noticed sometimes that people use higher voices (as a whole, rather than a cadence) when they don't want to offend. But I think we would all be better served if we learned to start with questions and calls for discussion, than trying to claim universal truth and quickly being refuted.

WorkLobster 5y ago

Apologies if my earlier post came off as peevish. I would not want your comment to be removed, and to my mind there is nothing sexist about it. I am just constantly surprised that, in a community that seems to pride itself on putative rationality, we often end up swimming in reductive "just-so" stories that co-incidentally agree with the cynical take du jour. I did pick on yours, which is partially bad luck, but also the idea that the voodoo you mention is so comprehensive and airtight that it can diagnose me and everyone I know over the internet with approval-seeking seems particularly ludicrous. I don't want to dump on your idea too much. It's very possible there's a kernel of truth to it—I know I have noticed sometimes that people use higher voices (as a whole, rather than a cadence) when they don't want to offend. But I think we would all be better served if we learned to start with questions and calls for discussion, than trying to claim universal truth and quickly being refuted.