4 ms·

I find it quite interesting that pg's article is so extensively uncurious and disdainful. He openly sneers at the topic he intends to explain, and tirelessly l

I find it quite interesting that pg's article is so extensively uncurious and disdainful. He openly sneers at the topic he intends to explain, and tirelessly lays into a straw man (the FoxNews definition of woke) rather than the strongest interpretation (what you're doing here). Several commenters here have asked why his article has been flagged, and I must say that if it was posted as a comment, it should certainly be flagged because of its flagrant violations of the site guidelines. I certainly wouldn't be inclined to call him a prig, but he's certainly set himself up for exactly that denunciation with his specific framing of the conversation.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
[flagged]
- taurath 2y ago
  > the observed behavior of many self-described feminists might lead you to believe that the definition was "someone who thinks that any dispute between men and women should be resolved in favor of women" I think there's a broader problem here, where there's a tendency to define all cultures by their most extreme elements and have conversations that are centered around those. This sells, this gets clicks, and it also decimates our theory of mind of others. The left does this, the right does this, centrists do this as well by pretending that what is "extreme" in their culture is unknowable and impossible. A respectful conversation with someone while holding curiosity can resolve most of the ills of the day. Lots of folks want to tell their story, and they're told that its not safe.
  - bpt3 2y ago
    It's impossible to have a respectful conversation with someone who thinks you're inherently responsible for society's ills and/or deserves to be ostracized for failing to maintain constant awareness of their jargon du jour. The people who claim this is a tiny fraction of the left (it's not the majority, but exactly how tiny it is is not entirely clear) are largely the same people who claim anyone who has a shred of agreement with any far right platform is a Nazi, so I don't have much sympathy for them being painted with a broad brush.
    - taurath 2y ago
      It’s plenty possible. Most of the framing that others put on people’s identities can be eliminated through kind interactions. The question is, do they allow that interaction or are they so afraid that they’ll never let it happen? Or, do they mistake online discourse and conflict as true to real life?
      - bpt3 2y ago
        A respectful conversation requires both parties to respect the other. Assuming someone is a racist, homophobe, etc. until proven otherwise doesn't qualify
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    > I think there's a broader problem here, where there's a tendency to define all cultures by their most extreme elements and have conversations that are centered around those. This sells, this gets clicks, and it also decimates our theory of mind of others. Not only that, corrupt politicians have the incentive to do it to themselves. You take someone like Pelosi, is she actually a radical? Nope. Is she corrupt? Oh dear, yes. And you could say the same of several prominent Republicans. But if the most prominent criticism of her is that she's corrupt, what defense of it is there? It's indefensible. Whereas if she pays lip service to some fringe lunatic ideas, that becomes the criticism of her from her opponents, and then the opponents can be accused of racism etc. and nobody is talking about the corruption anymore.
- pimlottc 2y ago
  I don’t know what you mean by the “official” definition of “feminist”. There’s no single authority that decides what an English word means or how it should be used like there is for French (which has the Académie Française). Perhaps you mean to say the “original” meaning of the word, but language is not static. Meanings change over time and vary from place to place. I’m not trying to be pedant. Reasonable people can disagree on what being a feminist means, it doesn’t mean one side is automatically correct or another side is cynically acting in bad faith.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    You can find one of those definitions in the dictionary and not the other one. But it's not two people disagreeing about the definition anyway. It's the same person trying to use different definitions in different contexts in order to conflate opposition to an unreasonable position with opposition to a reasonable one.
wendyshu 2y ago
He says 'And that's the real problem — the performativeness, not the social justice.'. What's wrong with sneering at performativeness?
- boothby 2y ago
  That's the strawman he chose to flog. Indeed, why not hold in contempt people I have defined as contemptible? It's circular reasoning, at best.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago

[flagged]

taurath 2y ago
> the observed behavior of many self-described feminists might lead you to believe that the definition was "someone who thinks that any dispute between men and women should be resolved in favor of women" I think there's a broader problem here, where there's a tendency to define all cultures by their most extreme elements and have conversations that are centered around those. This sells, this gets clicks, and it also decimates our theory of mind of others. The left does this, the right does this, centrists do this as well by pretending that what is "extreme" in their culture is unknowable and impossible. A respectful conversation with someone while holding curiosity can resolve most of the ills of the day. Lots of folks want to tell their story, and they're told that its not safe.
- bpt3 2y ago
  It's impossible to have a respectful conversation with someone who thinks you're inherently responsible for society's ills and/or deserves to be ostracized for failing to maintain constant awareness of their jargon du jour. The people who claim this is a tiny fraction of the left (it's not the majority, but exactly how tiny it is is not entirely clear) are largely the same people who claim anyone who has a shred of agreement with any far right platform is a Nazi, so I don't have much sympathy for them being painted with a broad brush.
  - taurath 2y ago
    It’s plenty possible. Most of the framing that others put on people’s identities can be eliminated through kind interactions. The question is, do they allow that interaction or are they so afraid that they’ll never let it happen? Or, do they mistake online discourse and conflict as true to real life?
    - bpt3 2y ago
      A respectful conversation requires both parties to respect the other. Assuming someone is a racist, homophobe, etc. until proven otherwise doesn't qualify
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  > I think there's a broader problem here, where there's a tendency to define all cultures by their most extreme elements and have conversations that are centered around those. This sells, this gets clicks, and it also decimates our theory of mind of others. Not only that, corrupt politicians have the incentive to do it to themselves. You take someone like Pelosi, is she actually a radical? Nope. Is she corrupt? Oh dear, yes. And you could say the same of several prominent Republicans. But if the most prominent criticism of her is that she's corrupt, what defense of it is there? It's indefensible. Whereas if she pays lip service to some fringe lunatic ideas, that becomes the criticism of her from her opponents, and then the opponents can be accused of racism etc. and nobody is talking about the corruption anymore.
pimlottc 2y ago
I don’t know what you mean by the “official” definition of “feminist”. There’s no single authority that decides what an English word means or how it should be used like there is for French (which has the Académie Française). Perhaps you mean to say the “original” meaning of the word, but language is not static. Meanings change over time and vary from place to place. I’m not trying to be pedant. Reasonable people can disagree on what being a feminist means, it doesn’t mean one side is automatically correct or another side is cynically acting in bad faith.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  You can find one of those definitions in the dictionary and not the other one. But it's not two people disagreeing about the definition anyway. It's the same person trying to use different definitions in different contexts in order to conflate opposition to an unreasonable position with opposition to a reasonable one.

wendyshu 2y ago

He says 'And that's the real problem — the performativeness, not the social justice.'. What's wrong with sneering at performativeness?

boothby 2y ago
That's the strawman he chose to flog. Indeed, why not hold in contempt people I have defined as contemptible? It's circular reasoning, at best.