5 ms·

Could someone steel man the protest against the lecture? (Anonymously if you prefer.) Particularly, the most I've been able to hunt down are vague claims that

• sp332 4y ago
  Taking the complaint at face value, mentioning that some Hindus discriminate against other Hindus makes non-Hindus feel negatively toward Hindus.
• hef19898 4y ago
  That she dares to be critical of the Hindu caste system. Twice bad because she is a woman and a Dalit. Not that any of that should matter, but we live in the world we live in.
  • Uhhrrr 4y ago
    "Steel man" means the opposite of a straw man argument. https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/steelmanning https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/steelmanning
    • loeg 4y ago
      Ah, you beat me to it by one minute. :)
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  • loeg 4y ago
    "Steel man" refers to an argument that is the opposite of a "straw man."
  • colinmhayes 4y ago
    Come on, this isn't a steelman.
• khazhoux 4y ago
  I don't think "steel man" has entered the common vernacular yet. At first I thought it was a typo.
  • civilian 4y ago
    it's entered the tech vernacular :) do you grok it now?
  • astrange 4y ago
    That's because it's another term reinvented by people who want to do philosophy without studying any of it. The traditional term is "argument reconstruction".
    • Noumenon72 4y ago
      This seems like a case where a field settled on undescriptive jargon (like "Type I error") and needs to be disrupted by a useful vernacular (like "false positive"). If you hear "steel man" once, you'll never forget it. I've forgotten "argument reconstruction" already.
      • astrange 4y ago
        The problem is that now people think the concept didn't exist before hearing the word "steelman", and can't lookup any preexisting literature about it. Although if you think that term is hard to understand, I'm sorry to inform you about literally anything written by Europeans, which is more or less made to be impossible to understand on purpose.
        • tqi 4y ago
          > The problem is that now people think the concept didn't exist before hearing the word "steelman" I don't think most reasonable people will make that mistake.
          • astrange 4y ago
• naveen99 4y ago
  See French approach on the topic. They refuse to acknowledge identity politics (except between labor and capital)
  • hahaxdxd123 4y ago
    > France appeared to be one of the least racially tolerant countries on the continent, with 22.7 percent saying they didn't want a neighbor of another race. Interesting social contract. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/15/a-fascinating-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-racially-tolerant-countries/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/15...
  • astrange 4y ago
• smartician 4y ago
  https://medium.com/who-is-the-american-hindu/why-do-we-say-no-to-lies-a-refutation-to-equality-labs-c1a72b71be9d https://medium.com/who-is-the-american-hindu/why-do-we-say-n... is one example (this is the refutation, the actual article by the lecturer is linked there). Another is a lecture titled "Why Savarnas rape", as a reaction to the series of rapes in Uttar Pradesh in 2020. Savarnas are basically the opposite of Dalit, namely members of the upper caste. I find it very interesting that the group in power is trying very hard to suppress any criticism, basically silencing the disadvantaged minority (within the Indian diaspora).
• salawat 4y ago
  The usual argument would be that this isn't profitable or contributing to the bottom line, and would serve only to inflame tensions/unrest etc... Thereby it's so disruptive it's antithetical to getting things done. Two options arise out of it: Hire someone else not prone to or going through this societal conflict at the moment ($$$), or forbid the topic and risk losin conscientious objectors amongst workers/leadership. The executive case with a shareholder value tilt would be avoid and reject the conversation, sink the risk, evaluate fallout, and hire replacements as necessary. You've still done your fiduciary duty, but damn those meddlesome cats. The Stakeholder value executive prioritizing social change would likely engage with the topic, seeing it as an opportunity to raise awareness, get free press, attract talent, etc. I can only really see a case for suppressing it if it were something you couldn't afford to not have.
  • the_only_law 4y ago
    > The usual argument would be that this isn't profitable or contributing to the bottom line This is the same company that makes and throws away products and apps continuously?
    • salawat 4y ago
      When you realize pur financial markets are optimized not for solving problems per se, but extracting wealth and fueling fiscal growth, such behavior patterns start making sense. The goal is trying something out, if it doesn't measure up, it's yeeted in the bin. Besides which, you're expecting rationality and consistency out of people in positions of power. You already lost. People concerned with the issue of maximally optimizing for wealth accrual are seldom burdened with a burning need to be rational and consistent. At least I've seen precious few positive examples thereof.
• zozbot234 4y ago
  These days, "Hinduphobic" has become code for "not a supporter of right-wing, fundamentalist Indian politics". Don't read too much into it.
  • thematrixturtle 4y ago
    A tactic borrowed from Israel, where any external criticism of Israeli state policies immediately gets you labeled as "anti-Semitic".
    • seoaeu 4y ago
      Conversely, "minority group <x> is always placing the race card" is a classic talking point of racists everywhere.
      • hyperhopper 4y ago
        The fact that both can happen is more of a reason to have a critical eye on both sides and actually look at everything on a case by case basis.
• kerblang 4y ago
  Ah! Here we go: > Thenmozhi Soundararajan, the founder of Equality Labs, a Dalit civil rights organisation Hm ok https://www.equalitylabs.org/mission https://www.equalitylabs.org/mission > Equality Labs is an Ambedkarite South Asian power-building organization What is this Ambedkarite thing? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalit_Buddhist_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalit_Buddhist_movement > The movement was launched in 1956 by Ambedkar when nearly half a million Dalits – formerly untouchables – joined him and converted to Navayana Buddhism So it's a Buddhist deal. Is Buddhism anti-hinduism? Um, it isn't exactly pro-hinduism, now is it? I'm not sure that's the steeliest man, but it's a start.
  • honkler 4y ago
    so caste based discrimination is indeed a part of hinduism, right? Because that is what calling dalit activism "hinduphobic" actually implies.
    • thematrixturtle 4y ago
      The right-wing party line on this is that caste was invented by the British to conquer and divide Indians, and has nothing to do with Hinduism. So if you claim castes still exist, you're by definition a Hinduphobic colonialist. The awkward fact that jati/varna is extensively covered in pre-British Hindu scriptures is handwaved away through claiming it's all spiritual metaphors and being a Brahmin was all about mental purity etc, not bloodlines.
    • ajross 4y ago
      In largely the same way that segregation was framed as a "Southern Way of Life", yes, that's what it seems like to me too. Civil rights era apologia was filled with descriptions of how separate but equal was a perfectly fine system and how everyone was OK with it down south. I get the same vibe here.
  • tootie 4y ago
    I'm not in India and not really qualified to comment, but I think the big missing context in all this that Hindu nationalism is the prevalent social and political movement in India right now.
• SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
  The problem is caste discrimination is often (always?) justified in Hindu religious terms, so it's easy to end up with things that are kinda muddled between anti-caste and anti-Hindu perspectives. For example, the "Caste Privilege 101" article on the author's reading list which I was reading (https://theaerogram.com/caste-privilege-101-primer-privileged/ https://theaerogram.com/caste-privilege-101-primer-privilege...) says that "Hinduism is not a safe space for us" and that being Hindu or Sikh suggests you might have caste privilege. I'm not sure that the author meant to imply she hates Hindus or that Hindus are inherently bad people - but I can understand why a devout Hindu might disagree with me.
• motohagiography 4y ago
  I like that challenge. Say, by analogy, what if another manager in a different situation, who made the 'cancel' decision on a talk, was concerned that the lecture they were being asked to approve was extremist? Then say, if Americans knew Hindu culture they might agree, just as they understand why they wouldn't invite their own untouchables to speak. In this activist case, it's absolutely offensive to compare the Hindu untouchables with our untouchables because theirs are born into it where ours are just uneducated or indoctrinated and it would be such a grotesque insult to those people living in India, or anywhere in the world, that no serious person could even compare them out loud, and I'm even taking a considerable personal risk to write the comparison hypothetically. But what if that's how that manager felt? How would "we" (progressive, though still mostly white, hegemonic We) respond to a speaker representing our own untouchables, and even though the comparison itself is so disgusting? The steelman case for the protests and for the manager is that they are acting on convictions as strong and (they believe) principled as any of our own, however unjustly in this case. Even though they're wrong, until we understand their own complete revolt that caused them to take such a reckless stance in this case, there is no way to engage with them, or understand the source of the conflict. This isn't mere empathy or a "both sides,"-ism, as I don't think we can empathize with someone we fundamentally know is so wrong. However, I do think one can have compassion for everyone involved, and it is immensely difficult, as it requires imagining something you are truly revolted by, and then imaging what it would be like for someone like a Dalit friend or someone you loved to see you feel that way about them. The tension between the heartbreak at imagining their eyes in that moment and then also the feeling of what can only be described as disgust for people with the most offensive values, is I think, the compassion, where you feel both the revolt at being confronted with the very worst of the worst, and also what it feels like that no matter what you do and how much goodness you bring that you will always be an object of social disgust. This is why compassion is hard, but beautiful, but so very hard! Being able to do that suggests a greatness of soul to me. The steelman case here isn't about pretending the broken logic of the protesting managers beliefs was somehow true, it's from asking, what if someone you loved or were responsible for felt one way or the other in this conflict about you? There is a basic misundertanding between two parts of a culture, where maybe these Brahmins don't trust the Dalits and the Dalits interpret that as contempt, which is returned by being provocative and giving the other just what they might expect? Bit of a homily, but in this sense, the steelman case shows how a specific kind of compassion might provide some future basis on which to establish both trust and respect, even if it's a very high bar.