13 ms·

Without a lot of prior context, this seems like a clear-headed rebuttal to an otherwise pretty low ad hominem attack. On a specific note, to characterise someo

Without a lot of prior context, this seems like a clear-headed rebuttal to an otherwise pretty low ad hominem attack. On a specific note, to characterise someone as sexist because they disagree with someone who happens to be a woman is in my opinion itself one of the most egregious examples of both sexism (for reasons I'll detail) and libel (for the damaging political and social impact of being branded with such a label). First, throwing the term 'sexist' around carelessly undermines genuine claims of sexism. Second, it attempts to not only target an individual as sexist, but often the male gender as a whole as being part of a "misogynistic boys-club", in turn implying that masculine identity itself is inherently wrong. Third, it undermines genuine gender equality - if people are concerned about their criticisms being perceived as sexist they will refrain from open and honest critique which is the hallmark of colleagues and equals. Fourth, it assumes (paternalistically) a gender role for women as "poor persecuted girls" who need protecting from criticism and attack. Consequently, sexual inequality is perpetuated - after all, if this same criticism had been targeted at a male journalist would we expect to see responses such as "you're only picking on him because he's a man"? There are plenty of genuine cases of sexism (against male, female, and other gender identities) which emerge out of the obsolescence of traditional social roles. Leveraging the political sensitivity of this important issue to attack an opponent is pretty low.

rimantas 14y ago
> First, throwing the term 'sexist' around carelessly > undermines genuine claims of sexism. The same goes for rasism. We are at the stage, that merely acknowledging someone's sex or race will earn you these labels. Too bad.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
  - sordina 14y ago
    > ... one might argue that a woman may or may not understand a female target audience better One might argue that women _on average_ may or may not understand a female audience better, but I can't even begin to think how someone wouldn't understand that variations between individual understandings would dwarf any potential divide here.
    - jergosh 14y ago
      "May or may not" is the same as "on average, may or may not".
      - sordina 14y ago
        I'm not certain of the exact context since the comment has been deleted, but the impression I gained was that my parent comment suggested tenuously that a person could justify a sexist position taken against an individual due to a statistical bias in the sexes. I was trying to emphasise that this position couldn't be taken logically, not suggesting that "may or may not" was being applied in a non-aggregate fashion.
        jergosh 14y ago
        This is changing the subject slightly, but to be fair, it's the same statistical bias that's used to say that men earn more than women.
        illuminate 14y ago
        "the same statistical bias that's used to say that men earn more than women" Those statements refer to the same job categories and experience levels.
- crag 14y ago
  An the same goes for antisemitism. In America, [publicly] write anything critical of the Israeli government and you are labeled an anti-Semite.
  - blvr 14y ago
    To be honest I've seen people complain about this far more often than I've actually seen it happen.
    - mistercow 14y ago
      Yes the complaints are more common than the occurrence (I think that's pretty normal, though), but the occurrence isn't uncommon. Back in my reddit days I was accused of anti-semitism merely for saying that creating Israel at that particular location was a mistake. Was that a real person? A false flag troll? Who knows. I've also read accounts by Jewish people whose family members called them "self-hating Jews" because they criticized Israel. But these anecdotes are not that meaningful. They do tell us the views of some extremists, but they tell us nothing about the prevalence of that extremism.
      - fusiongyro 14y ago
        Reddit's users have always struck me as fantastically antisemitic. I think a lot of them do it for shock laughs, but the genuine article is present as well. Saying Israel shouldn't have been born in that location isn't the same thing as saying Israel shouldn't exist, but Israel is the only country whose mere existence seems to require justification. Framing Israel's political problems as if they can be easily solved by not having an Israel certainly looks analogous to solving a Jewish problem by not having Jews. I'm absolutely not saying this is what you're saying, but this is how conversations about what should have happened instead are perceived by us Jews.
        scott_s 14y ago
        but this is how conversations about what should have happened instead are perceived by us Jews. Not all of them.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- mistercow 14y ago
  >We are at the stage, that merely acknowledging someone's sex or race will earn you these labels. That in itself is too broad a generalization though, because there are many times when mentioning someone's race/sex is, due to context, subtly racist/sexist. Generally, if you mention someones race or sex and that information is not actually relevant in any way to what you're saying, you are helping to perpetuate stereotypes and prejudice. It doesn't matter that doing so feels normal to you; shouting slurs at minorities feels normal to neo-Nazi[1] skinheads too. The hard part about prejudice is that it isn't simply solved by honest people acting naturally. It's solved by honest people trying really hard not to be prejudiced, because prejudice is innate. [1] ed: thanks for pointing this out, peterwwillis
  - peterwwillis 14y ago
    Wow. The irony of discussing prejudice and in the same breath calling skinheads racists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinhead http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinhead Please, please, please, read that page. Not only to save yourself and others the ignorance of believing skinheads are racists, but also because there's a culture and a people that will be forever denigrated because the media and parroting readers will continue to perpetuate this stereotype.
    - mistercow 14y ago
      My apologies. I should have specified "neo-Nazi skinheads". This is not in the same category as racial or gender prejudice, however. It is simply a matter of mislabeling.
      - peterwwillis 14y ago
        No apology necessary. It's just incredibly frustrating that the label has been taken to such an extreme to the point that a whole subculture is guilty by association. It's definitely not the same thing as racial or gender prejudice, but it can be just as damaging to the people who live under the label and deal with its unintended consequences (like getting beaten outside a club for shaving your head and wearing doc martens). We Hackers are lucky that we live in a world where geeks are now the popular cool kids and we can take back a word that used to get us expelled.
- crusso 14y ago
  The same goes for rasism. Well, we're at a stage in our society where you can't truthfully criticize some people because they happen to be members of select groups. Do so and you are accused of some kind of "ism". As the GP poster indicated, this undermines those truly trying to fight a given "ism".
- bthomas 14y ago
  I'm a completely uninformed white male, but I'm weary of drawing analogies between sexism and racism. It seems like reductionism, I think they should be tackled separately.
- illuminate 14y ago
  "We are at the stage, that merely acknowledging someone's sex or race will earn you these labels." There are most certainly contexts where unnecessarily acknowledging someone's sex or race will get you labeled. How you bring that up and why you feel it is necessary to do so is the rub.
synth 14y ago
Do you actually believe that calling someone a sexist (however 'careless' it might be) is an attack on the male gender as a whole? Really? Try swapping sexism with homophobia or racism, and see how ridiculous you sound. (Note: I agree with your first assertion.) First, throwing the term 'racist' around carelessly undermines genuine claims of racism. Second, it attempts to not only target an individual as racist, but often whites as a whole as being part of a "whites only-club", in turn implying that white identity itself is inherently wrong. Third, it undermines genuine racial equality - if people are concerned about their criticisms being perceived as racist they will refrain from open and honest critique which is the hallmark of colleagues and equals. Fourth, it assumes (essentially) a racial role for blacks as "poor persecuted minorities" who need protecting from criticism and attack. Consequently, racial inequality is perpetuated - after all, if this same criticism had been targeted at a white journalist would we expect to see responses such as "you're only picking on him because he's white"? A problem with reverse racism/sexism arguments is that they allow people who are secure in their positions to brush aside the racist/sexist undercurrents of society in favor of "gender/colorblind" solutions that only make sense if everyone agrees to ignore all cultural, social, and historical context. Just because people with axes to grind can use gender as a smear (an inept one, in this case) to paint someone as a sexist, doesn't make it right to imply we as males are somehow being attacked or victimized, or could be in the future. And no, being made uncomfortable of your position in society isn't an attack, it's a reminder.
- nopassrecover 14y ago
  > Do you actually believe that calling someone a sexist (however 'careless' it might be) is an attack on the male gender as a whole Keyword being 'often' not 'always', and it's usually particular to the male/female gender issue rather than all majorities/minorities. In particular, if you read the article you'll see that both the critic who claimed sexism and the woman being critiqued throw the term "boy's clubs" about. I've found it's socially quite acceptable to imply assumed male misogyny, but maybe my 'often' should be degraded to 'sometimes'? > A problem with reverse racism/sexism arguments is that they allow people who are secure in their positions to brush aside the racist/sexist undercurrents of society Right, which makes it all the more important to ensure that when racism/sexism claims are made, they are made legitimately and not casually, lest they be used as examples to dismiss, or ignore, genuine issues. > Just because people with axes to grind can use gender as a smear (an inept one, in this case) to paint someone as a sexist, doesn't make it right to imply we as males are somehow being attacked or victimized This probably comes back to my first point, but look I think the points are orthogonal. We agree that using social issues as a smear tactic is wrong. What I've noticed (and we seem to disagree on) is that at least sometimes (though perhaps limited to the gender case as I talk about above) someone using a social smear tactic will make an appeal to the wider issue (e.g. "x is a horrible sexist, and we all know how bad those boys clubs are") to solicit agreement and rapport, thus strengthening their attack. What I get concerned with is that the implicit acceptance of this wider issue claim tends to paint the majority as collectively guilty of issues which should be identified on an individual basis, which leads to more of the "us vs them" mentality that we're trying to eliminate.
neurotech1 14y ago
I've known Quinn Norton well enough to know she is intelligent and hard working. My view of the article was that it was more about the TSA security response to an author of a cryptochat software than a specific endorsement of the software itself. Soghoian's blog post was inflammatory and in my opinion, wrong.

rimantas 14y ago

> First, throwing the term 'sexist' around carelessly > undermines genuine claims of sexism. The same goes for rasism. We are at the stage, that merely acknowledging someone's sex or race will earn you these labels. Too bad.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
- sordina 14y ago
  > ... one might argue that a woman may or may not understand a female target audience better One might argue that women _on average_ may or may not understand a female audience better, but I can't even begin to think how someone wouldn't understand that variations between individual understandings would dwarf any potential divide here.
  - jergosh 14y ago
    "May or may not" is the same as "on average, may or may not".
    - sordina 14y ago
      I'm not certain of the exact context since the comment has been deleted, but the impression I gained was that my parent comment suggested tenuously that a person could justify a sexist position taken against an individual due to a statistical bias in the sexes. I was trying to emphasise that this position couldn't be taken logically, not suggesting that "may or may not" was being applied in a non-aggregate fashion.
      - jergosh 14y ago
        This is changing the subject slightly, but to be fair, it's the same statistical bias that's used to say that men earn more than women.
        illuminate 14y ago
        "the same statistical bias that's used to say that men earn more than women" Those statements refer to the same job categories and experience levels.
crag 14y ago
An the same goes for antisemitism. In America, [publicly] write anything critical of the Israeli government and you are labeled an anti-Semite.
- blvr 14y ago
  To be honest I've seen people complain about this far more often than I've actually seen it happen.
  - mistercow 14y ago
    Yes the complaints are more common than the occurrence (I think that's pretty normal, though), but the occurrence isn't uncommon. Back in my reddit days I was accused of anti-semitism merely for saying that creating Israel at that particular location was a mistake. Was that a real person? A false flag troll? Who knows. I've also read accounts by Jewish people whose family members called them "self-hating Jews" because they criticized Israel. But these anecdotes are not that meaningful. They do tell us the views of some extremists, but they tell us nothing about the prevalence of that extremism.
    - fusiongyro 14y ago
      Reddit's users have always struck me as fantastically antisemitic. I think a lot of them do it for shock laughs, but the genuine article is present as well. Saying Israel shouldn't have been born in that location isn't the same thing as saying Israel shouldn't exist, but Israel is the only country whose mere existence seems to require justification. Framing Israel's political problems as if they can be easily solved by not having an Israel certainly looks analogous to solving a Jewish problem by not having Jews. I'm absolutely not saying this is what you're saying, but this is how conversations about what should have happened instead are perceived by us Jews.
      - scott_s 14y ago
        but this is how conversations about what should have happened instead are perceived by us Jews. Not all of them.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
mistercow 14y ago
>We are at the stage, that merely acknowledging someone's sex or race will earn you these labels. That in itself is too broad a generalization though, because there are many times when mentioning someone's race/sex is, due to context, subtly racist/sexist. Generally, if you mention someones race or sex and that information is not actually relevant in any way to what you're saying, you are helping to perpetuate stereotypes and prejudice. It doesn't matter that doing so feels normal to you; shouting slurs at minorities feels normal to neo-Nazi[1] skinheads too. The hard part about prejudice is that it isn't simply solved by honest people acting naturally. It's solved by honest people trying really hard not to be prejudiced, because prejudice is innate. [1] ed: thanks for pointing this out, peterwwillis
- peterwwillis 14y ago
  Wow. The irony of discussing prejudice and in the same breath calling skinheads racists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinhead http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinhead Please, please, please, read that page. Not only to save yourself and others the ignorance of believing skinheads are racists, but also because there's a culture and a people that will be forever denigrated because the media and parroting readers will continue to perpetuate this stereotype.
  - mistercow 14y ago
    My apologies. I should have specified "neo-Nazi skinheads". This is not in the same category as racial or gender prejudice, however. It is simply a matter of mislabeling.
    - peterwwillis 14y ago
      No apology necessary. It's just incredibly frustrating that the label has been taken to such an extreme to the point that a whole subculture is guilty by association. It's definitely not the same thing as racial or gender prejudice, but it can be just as damaging to the people who live under the label and deal with its unintended consequences (like getting beaten outside a club for shaving your head and wearing doc martens). We Hackers are lucky that we live in a world where geeks are now the popular cool kids and we can take back a word that used to get us expelled.
crusso 14y ago
The same goes for rasism. Well, we're at a stage in our society where you can't truthfully criticize some people because they happen to be members of select groups. Do so and you are accused of some kind of "ism". As the GP poster indicated, this undermines those truly trying to fight a given "ism".
bthomas 14y ago
I'm a completely uninformed white male, but I'm weary of drawing analogies between sexism and racism. It seems like reductionism, I think they should be tackled separately.
illuminate 14y ago
"We are at the stage, that merely acknowledging someone's sex or race will earn you these labels." There are most certainly contexts where unnecessarily acknowledging someone's sex or race will get you labeled. How you bring that up and why you feel it is necessary to do so is the rub.

synth 14y ago

Do you actually believe that calling someone a sexist (however 'careless' it might be) is an attack on the male gender as a whole? Really? Try swapping sexism with homophobia or racism, and see how ridiculous you sound. (Note: I agree with your first assertion.) First, throwing the term 'racist' around carelessly undermines genuine claims of racism. Second, it attempts to not only target an individual as racist, but often whites as a whole as being part of a "whites only-club", in turn implying that white identity itself is inherently wrong. Third, it undermines genuine racial equality - if people are concerned about their criticisms being perceived as racist they will refrain from open and honest critique which is the hallmark of colleagues and equals. Fourth, it assumes (essentially) a racial role for blacks as "poor persecuted minorities" who need protecting from criticism and attack. Consequently, racial inequality is perpetuated - after all, if this same criticism had been targeted at a white journalist would we expect to see responses such as "you're only picking on him because he's white"? A problem with reverse racism/sexism arguments is that they allow people who are secure in their positions to brush aside the racist/sexist undercurrents of society in favor of "gender/colorblind" solutions that only make sense if everyone agrees to ignore all cultural, social, and historical context. Just because people with axes to grind can use gender as a smear (an inept one, in this case) to paint someone as a sexist, doesn't make it right to imply we as males are somehow being attacked or victimized, or could be in the future. And no, being made uncomfortable of your position in society isn't an attack, it's a reminder.

nopassrecover 14y ago
> Do you actually believe that calling someone a sexist (however 'careless' it might be) is an attack on the male gender as a whole Keyword being 'often' not 'always', and it's usually particular to the male/female gender issue rather than all majorities/minorities. In particular, if you read the article you'll see that both the critic who claimed sexism and the woman being critiqued throw the term "boy's clubs" about. I've found it's socially quite acceptable to imply assumed male misogyny, but maybe my 'often' should be degraded to 'sometimes'? > A problem with reverse racism/sexism arguments is that they allow people who are secure in their positions to brush aside the racist/sexist undercurrents of society Right, which makes it all the more important to ensure that when racism/sexism claims are made, they are made legitimately and not casually, lest they be used as examples to dismiss, or ignore, genuine issues. > Just because people with axes to grind can use gender as a smear (an inept one, in this case) to paint someone as a sexist, doesn't make it right to imply we as males are somehow being attacked or victimized This probably comes back to my first point, but look I think the points are orthogonal. We agree that using social issues as a smear tactic is wrong. What I've noticed (and we seem to disagree on) is that at least sometimes (though perhaps limited to the gender case as I talk about above) someone using a social smear tactic will make an appeal to the wider issue (e.g. "x is a horrible sexist, and we all know how bad those boys clubs are") to solicit agreement and rapport, thus strengthening their attack. What I get concerned with is that the implicit acceptance of this wider issue claim tends to paint the majority as collectively guilty of issues which should be identified on an individual basis, which leads to more of the "us vs them" mentality that we're trying to eliminate.

neurotech1 14y ago

I've known Quinn Norton well enough to know she is intelligent and hard working. My view of the article was that it was more about the TSA security response to an author of a cryptochat software than a specific endorsement of the software itself. Soghoian's blog post was inflammatory and in my opinion, wrong.