7 ms·

No. He’s making the troll argument that if people born men can identify as women (and therefore be treated as such) then why can’t white people identify as blac

by RC_ITR 4y ago

No. He’s making the troll argument that if people born men can identify as women (and therefore be treated as such) then why can’t white people identify as black and say the n-word. Not as superficially bad as saying the word, but bad in the sense it is a two-for-one: trivializing the experience of black people and trans people.

babypuncher 4y ago
For some reason I find this even worse. What an ass. It's a shittier version of the "trans apache attack helicopter" meme from forever ago.
basch 4y ago
Maybe I am giving him the benefit of the doubt, but I read it as the exact opposite. I read it as him saying: the argument that "why can’t white people identify as black and say the n-word" is a troll argument, made in bad faith, and is disruptive to work culture and productivity, and people making that argument have no place in their culture. I arrive at that conclusion because the heading starts "What are they upset about?" They are upset "whether someone can identify as a different race and be allowed to use the N-word." I dont really think someone parading against wokism would in good faith argue that somebody can identify as a different race. They would only do so facetiously. Three tweets above it, his SYN flood DoS analogy makes its pretty clear he is against people derailing good conversation with in bad faith arguments. As an aside, I'm honestly a little concerned that basically every other commenter arrived at a different conclusion. We are all all over the place. Is our ability to connectively parse tribal language, in a consensual way, really this broken? Is what he wrote really that cryptic or unclear? EDIT: I guess he is the facetious bad actor.
- RC_ITR 4y ago
  No, we are just reading a very charged statement and revealing our biases. One only needs to look at the history of biblical textualism to see that this is nothing new. Edit: my interpretation of “they” btw is that “woke” people are upset someone made that argument, which ceo is arguing is a way to shut down good faith argument.
  - basch 4y ago
    Your interpretation is the other way I read it. Either the pronoun people and the n-word people are the same people, or they are two different groups of opposite upset people. Given your interpretation, is he saying "engaging troll arguments further is a form of disruption"? It's also possible the n-word people are prowokism but making a twisted not in bad faith argument that everybody saying the word is more inclusive. And meaning it earnestly. This reading seems the least likely. His more egregious transgression, to me, is going from "If nobody is ever offended, we either don't have enough diversity of thought or we don't have enough transparency in communication" to 'let's sever ties with our 20 most outraged, so there isnt so many offended here.' There's some contradiction between words and actions. If he wants to build a offense-inclusive environment, it needs to include all outrage. These 20 people should be encouraged to continue as an anti-culture team, as a counterfource and check & balance counter to their culture, albeit in a way that doesnt monopolize internal attention.
  - basch 4y ago
    Update: The NYT says he's the one who made the troll argument. So maybe he is the disruption that doesnt fit his own culture. Extending someone the benefit of the doubt only goes as far as until they prove otherwise. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/15/technology/kraken-crypto-culture.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/15/technology/kraken-crypto-...
- bertil 4y ago
  I admire your effort to try to parse it, but I don't really think we should, or can: it's not a topic that can be explained in 280 characters, one can only fit so many layers of implicit ironic quotation in a tweet, so… Don’t make convoluted points about discrimination on twitter. It's not suited for such points. If you need to, draft something deliberate, long-form and edit it several times. Have a close friend review it, edit some more, and link to it from a tweet, but everything about this thread tells me no one gained much by being exposed to it. As a CEO, he should have known better, learn to communicate clearly and in the right forum, and not force you & others in a futile exercise on exegesis.
  - titanomachy 4y ago
    Not sure why this is being downvoted. A thoughtful person would probably not try to summarize their views on race, equity, or free speech in a tweet.
- Redoubts 4y ago
  It’s really weird to give him this benefit of the doubt, given his post in /7.
willcipriano 4y ago
Just as a curiosity what is the counter to this troll argument? Philosophically speaking why is one obvious and the other unthinkable?
- ketzo 4y ago
  If you want a simple appeal to medical science, gender dysphoria is recognized in the DSM-5 [1], and gender-affirming care and identification have been shown to result in measurable improvements in transgender people’s health outcomes [2]. Neither of those things are true for “trans-racialism.” Beyond that: I struggle to find almost any good-faith examples of people claiming that they genuinely believe themselves to be “trans-racial.” [1] https://psychiatry.org/patients-families/gender-dysphoria/what-is-gender-dysphoria https://psychiatry.org/patients-families/gender-dysphoria/wh... [2] https://www.pcori.org/research-results/2013/examining-health-outcomes-people-who-are-transgender https://www.pcori.org/research-results/2013/examining-health...
  - willcipriano 4y ago
    The issue there philosophically is that prior to it's recognition in the DSM-5 transgender people would then not have existed. That is more of an appeal to authority than an explanation why one accident of birth is a social construct and one is not.
    - ketzo 4y ago
      Yeah, that’s fair as an argument from first principles. But speaking from a more practical standpoint: we know, empirically, that there are a lot of transgender people out in the world. We know that many of them feel much healthier when they are able to transition, in various different ways. It’s not just an appeal to authority, it’s an appeal to a fairly significant consensus in medical science. Which feels better to me. We just don’t have any meaningful evidence for “I identify as black so I can say the N-word” being anything other than an annoying troll argument. Or at least, I certainly haven’t seen any. But if you want to talk about race/gender as social constructs, that’s a whole ‘nother conversation — one very worth having!
Reubachi 4y ago
No pony in this race, but no. He is saying the exact opposite. To prevent this confusion, should have said nothing at all.

by RC_ITR 4y ago

babypuncher 4y ago

For some reason I find this even worse. What an ass. It's a shittier version of the "trans apache attack helicopter" meme from forever ago.

basch 4y ago

Maybe I am giving him the benefit of the doubt, but I read it as the exact opposite. I read it as him saying: the argument that "why can’t white people identify as black and say the n-word" is a troll argument, made in bad faith, and is disruptive to work culture and productivity, and people making that argument have no place in their culture. I arrive at that conclusion because the heading starts "What are they upset about?" They are upset "whether someone can identify as a different race and be allowed to use the N-word." I dont really think someone parading against wokism would in good faith argue that somebody can identify as a different race. They would only do so facetiously. Three tweets above it, his SYN flood DoS analogy makes its pretty clear he is against people derailing good conversation with in bad faith arguments. As an aside, I'm honestly a little concerned that basically every other commenter arrived at a different conclusion. We are all all over the place. Is our ability to connectively parse tribal language, in a consensual way, really this broken? Is what he wrote really that cryptic or unclear? EDIT: I guess he is the facetious bad actor.

RC_ITR 4y ago
No, we are just reading a very charged statement and revealing our biases. One only needs to look at the history of biblical textualism to see that this is nothing new. Edit: my interpretation of “they” btw is that “woke” people are upset someone made that argument, which ceo is arguing is a way to shut down good faith argument.
- basch 4y ago
  Your interpretation is the other way I read it. Either the pronoun people and the n-word people are the same people, or they are two different groups of opposite upset people. Given your interpretation, is he saying "engaging troll arguments further is a form of disruption"? It's also possible the n-word people are prowokism but making a twisted not in bad faith argument that everybody saying the word is more inclusive. And meaning it earnestly. This reading seems the least likely. His more egregious transgression, to me, is going from "If nobody is ever offended, we either don't have enough diversity of thought or we don't have enough transparency in communication" to 'let's sever ties with our 20 most outraged, so there isnt so many offended here.' There's some contradiction between words and actions. If he wants to build a offense-inclusive environment, it needs to include all outrage. These 20 people should be encouraged to continue as an anti-culture team, as a counterfource and check & balance counter to their culture, albeit in a way that doesnt monopolize internal attention.
- basch 4y ago
  Update: The NYT says he's the one who made the troll argument. So maybe he is the disruption that doesnt fit his own culture. Extending someone the benefit of the doubt only goes as far as until they prove otherwise. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/15/technology/kraken-crypto-culture.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/15/technology/kraken-crypto-...
bertil 4y ago
I admire your effort to try to parse it, but I don't really think we should, or can: it's not a topic that can be explained in 280 characters, one can only fit so many layers of implicit ironic quotation in a tweet, so… Don’t make convoluted points about discrimination on twitter. It's not suited for such points. If you need to, draft something deliberate, long-form and edit it several times. Have a close friend review it, edit some more, and link to it from a tweet, but everything about this thread tells me no one gained much by being exposed to it. As a CEO, he should have known better, learn to communicate clearly and in the right forum, and not force you & others in a futile exercise on exegesis.
- titanomachy 4y ago
  Not sure why this is being downvoted. A thoughtful person would probably not try to summarize their views on race, equity, or free speech in a tweet.
Redoubts 4y ago
It’s really weird to give him this benefit of the doubt, given his post in /7.

willcipriano 4y ago

Just as a curiosity what is the counter to this troll argument? Philosophically speaking why is one obvious and the other unthinkable?

ketzo 4y ago
If you want a simple appeal to medical science, gender dysphoria is recognized in the DSM-5 [1], and gender-affirming care and identification have been shown to result in measurable improvements in transgender people’s health outcomes [2]. Neither of those things are true for “trans-racialism.” Beyond that: I struggle to find almost any good-faith examples of people claiming that they genuinely believe themselves to be “trans-racial.” [1] https://psychiatry.org/patients-families/gender-dysphoria/what-is-gender-dysphoria https://psychiatry.org/patients-families/gender-dysphoria/wh... [2] https://www.pcori.org/research-results/2013/examining-health-outcomes-people-who-are-transgender https://www.pcori.org/research-results/2013/examining-health...
- willcipriano 4y ago
  The issue there philosophically is that prior to it's recognition in the DSM-5 transgender people would then not have existed. That is more of an appeal to authority than an explanation why one accident of birth is a social construct and one is not.
  - ketzo 4y ago
    Yeah, that’s fair as an argument from first principles. But speaking from a more practical standpoint: we know, empirically, that there are a lot of transgender people out in the world. We know that many of them feel much healthier when they are able to transition, in various different ways. It’s not just an appeal to authority, it’s an appeal to a fairly significant consensus in medical science. Which feels better to me. We just don’t have any meaningful evidence for “I identify as black so I can say the N-word” being anything other than an annoying troll argument. Or at least, I certainly haven’t seen any. But if you want to talk about race/gender as social constructs, that’s a whole ‘nother conversation — one very worth having!

Reubachi 4y ago

No pony in this race, but no. He is saying the exact opposite. To prevent this confusion, should have said nothing at all.