5 ms·

> The clearest evidence of this [that some x-ist statements may be true] is that whether a statement is considered x-ist often depends on who said it. Truth doe

by afc 4y ago

> The clearest evidence of this [that some x-ist statements may be true] is that whether a statement is considered x-ist often depends on who said it. Truth doesn't work that way. The same statement can't be true when one person says it, but x-ist, and therefore false, when another person does. The argument doesn't support it's conclusion: it _could_ be that all potentially x-ist statements are false, but they are only x-ist when certain people say them. In other words, whether they are x-ist depends on who says them, but they may still be all false (regardless of who says them).

skellington 4y ago
You mis-paraphrased the argument. Your paraphrase insertion [] is incorrect. It should be: [that such x-ist labels are applied to statements regardless of their truth or falsity] Your conclusion is roughly his point, but his point holds independently of the "truth" of the underlying statement.
mjburgess 4y ago
It's a "truth vs. order" debate. PG is in highly stable environments where order isnt an issue, so he is more concerned about truth. Generally, when "x-isms" are accused, the issue is the break down of social order in the environment in which the accusations are made. It really doesnt matter if your x-ist point is true, if saying it, is an action which destabilizes (eg.,) the workplace. Most spaces aren't for discussing what's true, they're for getting-things-done. Stating truths in those spaces may, seemingly quite rightly, be prohibited.
- Ancapistani 4y ago
  > It's a "truth vs. order" debate. > It really doesnt matter if your x-ist point is true, if saying it, is an action which destabilizes (eg.,) the workplace. I think this is pretty insightful. There are two things at play here that I think are being conflated - one is challenging certain concepts, and the other is challenge the social order that is predicated upon them. Let’s take racism as an example. Arguing that racism doesn’t exist, in whole or in part, is challenging the concept. Rightly or wrongly, that is one of the “heresies” from the article. It’s also a very difficult thing to discuss respectfully and productively in the workplace, and in most every case I can think of off the top of my head, unproductive. Arguing that the actions taken in response to that conclusion, in my opinion, is and should be a different thing entirely. We have a work environment today that seeks to offset historical/systemic racism through positive steps such as affirmative action. I believe that challenging the implementation, scope, or even the continued existence of affirmative action should be acceptable - because it is a specific action that is in the scope of the course of business and has a demonstrable impact on the work environment itself. From my reading of the article, I think what PG is saying is that it should be much more acceptable than it is to openly and honestly discuss the system that we have built that creates our work environments. I don’t believe that someone who argues against affirmative action - or any similar workplace policy, explicit or implicit - should be anathema. This example of racism/AA is only one example. There are others with similar stigma associated. Personally, I feel a great deal of social pressure not to discuss anything related to COVID in the workplace. I work for a company based in SF, but live in a small town in the South - very different social environments. I have had COVID, have verified that I have demonstrable antibodies on par with what is expected from vaccination + boosters. I also have a history of systemic inflammation that I’ve struggled with my whole life, and both my GP and the specialist I see agree that vaccination poses at least a slightly higher risk for me than for the general population. As a result I’ve decided not to get the vaccine. I have absolutely zero desire to try to sway anyone to see things my way, and honestly don’t want to talk about it at work lest it turn into a political argument. With few exceptions, I avoid discussing politics with colleagues. A while ago we were planning a team outing in California. I wasn’t going to be able to attend, but I absolutely didn’t want to discuss that the reason was that I wasn’t vaccinated and don’t want to be. This is the kind of heresy that concerns me. I feel like it should be reasonable for me to say that I am not vaccinated and don’t intend to be. I shouldn’t have to justify that. I may be excluded from some activities, and that’s acceptable to me - but it’s a discussion that I don’t even feel like I can have. Instead I have to hide this decision, avoid discussion of it, and hope I’m not put into a position where I’m forced to. If I do have to reveal it to my employer I expect that at the very least I’ll be viewed negatively in their eyes and it will harm my social environment. It shouldn’t be seen as heresy to hold a different opinion.
  - blindmute 4y ago
    As an aside, I was in your precise situation, but I ended up telling my SF company the truth. I'm sure they do view me differently now, but it's worth the feeling of value congruence to tell the truth and normalize such things.
  - ss108 4y ago
    W/r/t your medical situation, I'm not advocating for just outright telling them, but I would say your trepidation, while understandable, may be a bit overwrought. I think most people understand that some people are medically ineligible for the vaccine.
  - breck 4y ago
    Its intriguing that PG used the term “anti-vaxers”, in this article. Being interested in the truth about vaccines will get you fired and the term “anti-vaxers” is used by the aggressively conventional minded to shut down debate. So I wonder if there’s subtext and those parts are him not meaning what he’s saying on the surface? Anyway, the truth is if you’ve had COVID-19 you are far more protected than someone who got one of these vaccines. It is heretical to say that, and I get called an “anti-vaxer”, but it’s true.
    - fsociety999 4y ago
      Came here to say the same thing. It is pretty ironic that in an essay that is basically criticizing people who can’t put up with heretics, he is doing the same thing with regards to "anti-vaxxers" without even realizing it. It doesn’t help that the term specifically (according to Merriam-Webster) is defined as: > a person who opposes the use of vaccines or regulations mandating vaccination It is a loaded term that is used mostly as a means to vilify people. There must be a lot of people who are pro vaccine, but against government mandates, so where does that leave them? Also, it is possible to be generally pro vaccines, but also skeptical of new vaccine technologies rushed through development and regulatory approvals in record time where the companies leading the push have a history of putting profits ahead of public health. The fact that your comment shows up in gray here is further proof of the exact dynamic that he is referring to in the essay: > But occasionally, like a vector field whose elements become aligned, a large number of aggressively conventional-minded people unite behind some ideology all at once. Then they become much more of a problem, because a mob dynamic takes over, where the enthusiasm of each participant is increased by the enthusiasm of the others.
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  > Most spaces aren't for discussing what's true, they're for getting-things-done. Stating truths in those spaces may, seemingly quite rightly, be prohibited. You can not make progress in a land of fiction. Propaganda is a stop sign, not a tool for productivity.
- alanlammiman 4y ago
  thank you, that seems to be a very useful framework to keep in mind
jameshart 4y ago
A statement, on its own, isn't "x-ist". Choosing to make a particular statement at a particular time, in a particular context, in order to promote an "x-ist" agenda is "x-ist". That's the same whether or not the statement is true.
kemayo 4y ago
The particularly uncharitable reading of that quote that jumped to my mind when I read it is "but why can't I, a white guy, say the n-word?" But this probably isn't what Graham actually had in mind. I think Graham is trying to operate in some idealized plane of pure logical statements where you can speak truthful axioms and reason from them. He misses that in the real world statements have a context, are part of an ongoing cultural conversation, and imply consequences. There are things you can say which are "true" but which miss the point or suggest that you're pushing for a certain policy outcome. There's a lot of situations where you can say "the statistics say X and so we should do Y" and the (fairly valid) rebuttal is, essentially, "why did you accept the societal structure that produced those statistics?"
- alanlammiman 4y ago
  This was also the example that came to my mind. It is perhaps one of the most iconic examples, and as such, absent a concrete example or further clarification, I don't see why you shouldn't assume that this is representative of what the author had in mind.
  - mwcampbell 4y ago
    > as such, absent a concrete example or further clarification, I don't see why you should assume that this isn't what the author had in mind. Because we shouldn't automatically assume the worst in each other?
    - alanlammiman 4y ago
      That is very far from 'the worst' I can imagine in someone. Further, it is hardly 'automatic' - it is a response to a hypothetical situation the author posited, for which multiple people considered that as the most prominent concrete example. If the author did not intend that, he did a poor job of making his argument clear.
  - kemayo 4y ago
    Oh, I doubt he really wanted that. The sort of thing I suspect he was actually referencing is the "black people commit X% of all crimes" / "racial differences in IQ test scores show..." talking points. (Or their equivalents in other fields. Women-in-computer-science, etc.)

by afc 4y ago

skellington 4y ago

You mis-paraphrased the argument. Your paraphrase insertion [] is incorrect. It should be: [that such x-ist labels are applied to statements regardless of their truth or falsity] Your conclusion is roughly his point, but his point holds independently of the "truth" of the underlying statement.

mjburgess 4y ago

It's a "truth vs. order" debate. PG is in highly stable environments where order isnt an issue, so he is more concerned about truth. Generally, when "x-isms" are accused, the issue is the break down of social order in the environment in which the accusations are made. It really doesnt matter if your x-ist point is true, if saying it, is an action which destabilizes (eg.,) the workplace. Most spaces aren't for discussing what's true, they're for getting-things-done. Stating truths in those spaces may, seemingly quite rightly, be prohibited.

Ancapistani 4y ago
> It's a "truth vs. order" debate. > It really doesnt matter if your x-ist point is true, if saying it, is an action which destabilizes (eg.,) the workplace. I think this is pretty insightful. There are two things at play here that I think are being conflated - one is challenging certain concepts, and the other is challenge the social order that is predicated upon them. Let’s take racism as an example. Arguing that racism doesn’t exist, in whole or in part, is challenging the concept. Rightly or wrongly, that is one of the “heresies” from the article. It’s also a very difficult thing to discuss respectfully and productively in the workplace, and in most every case I can think of off the top of my head, unproductive. Arguing that the actions taken in response to that conclusion, in my opinion, is and should be a different thing entirely. We have a work environment today that seeks to offset historical/systemic racism through positive steps such as affirmative action. I believe that challenging the implementation, scope, or even the continued existence of affirmative action should be acceptable - because it is a specific action that is in the scope of the course of business and has a demonstrable impact on the work environment itself. From my reading of the article, I think what PG is saying is that it should be much more acceptable than it is to openly and honestly discuss the system that we have built that creates our work environments. I don’t believe that someone who argues against affirmative action - or any similar workplace policy, explicit or implicit - should be anathema. This example of racism/AA is only one example. There are others with similar stigma associated. Personally, I feel a great deal of social pressure not to discuss anything related to COVID in the workplace. I work for a company based in SF, but live in a small town in the South - very different social environments. I have had COVID, have verified that I have demonstrable antibodies on par with what is expected from vaccination + boosters. I also have a history of systemic inflammation that I’ve struggled with my whole life, and both my GP and the specialist I see agree that vaccination poses at least a slightly higher risk for me than for the general population. As a result I’ve decided not to get the vaccine. I have absolutely zero desire to try to sway anyone to see things my way, and honestly don’t want to talk about it at work lest it turn into a political argument. With few exceptions, I avoid discussing politics with colleagues. A while ago we were planning a team outing in California. I wasn’t going to be able to attend, but I absolutely didn’t want to discuss that the reason was that I wasn’t vaccinated and don’t want to be. This is the kind of heresy that concerns me. I feel like it should be reasonable for me to say that I am not vaccinated and don’t intend to be. I shouldn’t have to justify that. I may be excluded from some activities, and that’s acceptable to me - but it’s a discussion that I don’t even feel like I can have. Instead I have to hide this decision, avoid discussion of it, and hope I’m not put into a position where I’m forced to. If I do have to reveal it to my employer I expect that at the very least I’ll be viewed negatively in their eyes and it will harm my social environment. It shouldn’t be seen as heresy to hold a different opinion.
- blindmute 4y ago
  As an aside, I was in your precise situation, but I ended up telling my SF company the truth. I'm sure they do view me differently now, but it's worth the feeling of value congruence to tell the truth and normalize such things.
- ss108 4y ago
  W/r/t your medical situation, I'm not advocating for just outright telling them, but I would say your trepidation, while understandable, may be a bit overwrought. I think most people understand that some people are medically ineligible for the vaccine.
- breck 4y ago
  Its intriguing that PG used the term “anti-vaxers”, in this article. Being interested in the truth about vaccines will get you fired and the term “anti-vaxers” is used by the aggressively conventional minded to shut down debate. So I wonder if there’s subtext and those parts are him not meaning what he’s saying on the surface? Anyway, the truth is if you’ve had COVID-19 you are far more protected than someone who got one of these vaccines. It is heretical to say that, and I get called an “anti-vaxer”, but it’s true.
  - fsociety999 4y ago
    Came here to say the same thing. It is pretty ironic that in an essay that is basically criticizing people who can’t put up with heretics, he is doing the same thing with regards to "anti-vaxxers" without even realizing it. It doesn’t help that the term specifically (according to Merriam-Webster) is defined as: > a person who opposes the use of vaccines or regulations mandating vaccination It is a loaded term that is used mostly as a means to vilify people. There must be a lot of people who are pro vaccine, but against government mandates, so where does that leave them? Also, it is possible to be generally pro vaccines, but also skeptical of new vaccine technologies rushed through development and regulatory approvals in record time where the companies leading the push have a history of putting profits ahead of public health. The fact that your comment shows up in gray here is further proof of the exact dynamic that he is referring to in the essay: > But occasionally, like a vector field whose elements become aligned, a large number of aggressively conventional-minded people unite behind some ideology all at once. Then they become much more of a problem, because a mob dynamic takes over, where the enthusiasm of each participant is increased by the enthusiasm of the others.
vorpalhex 4y ago
> Most spaces aren't for discussing what's true, they're for getting-things-done. Stating truths in those spaces may, seemingly quite rightly, be prohibited. You can not make progress in a land of fiction. Propaganda is a stop sign, not a tool for productivity.
alanlammiman 4y ago
thank you, that seems to be a very useful framework to keep in mind

jameshart 4y ago

A statement, on its own, isn't "x-ist". Choosing to make a particular statement at a particular time, in a particular context, in order to promote an "x-ist" agenda is "x-ist". That's the same whether or not the statement is true.

kemayo 4y ago

The particularly uncharitable reading of that quote that jumped to my mind when I read it is "but why can't I, a white guy, say the n-word?" But this probably isn't what Graham actually had in mind. I think Graham is trying to operate in some idealized plane of pure logical statements where you can speak truthful axioms and reason from them. He misses that in the real world statements have a context, are part of an ongoing cultural conversation, and imply consequences. There are things you can say which are "true" but which miss the point or suggest that you're pushing for a certain policy outcome. There's a lot of situations where you can say "the statistics say X and so we should do Y" and the (fairly valid) rebuttal is, essentially, "why did you accept the societal structure that produced those statistics?"

alanlammiman 4y ago
This was also the example that came to my mind. It is perhaps one of the most iconic examples, and as such, absent a concrete example or further clarification, I don't see why you shouldn't assume that this is representative of what the author had in mind.
- mwcampbell 4y ago
  > as such, absent a concrete example or further clarification, I don't see why you should assume that this isn't what the author had in mind. Because we shouldn't automatically assume the worst in each other?
  - alanlammiman 4y ago
    That is very far from 'the worst' I can imagine in someone. Further, it is hardly 'automatic' - it is a response to a hypothetical situation the author posited, for which multiple people considered that as the most prominent concrete example. If the author did not intend that, he did a poor job of making his argument clear.
- kemayo 4y ago
  Oh, I doubt he really wanted that. The sort of thing I suspect he was actually referencing is the "black people commit X% of all crimes" / "racial differences in IQ test scores show..." talking points. (Or their equivalents in other fields. Women-in-computer-science, etc.)