5 ms·

The problem with C+= and feminism

13 points by lawl 13y ago

thenerdfiles 13y ago
The dialects of technologism emerge. Look. If you want to get into modern research on Logic, see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-free/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-free/ and http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/. This entire discussion falls under Rhetoric, or metacognition anyway; on its worst days, Politics, often codified in polemics. Nevertheless, Psychologism has been abandoned in modern conceptions of Logic[0]. Now is Psychologism true or false? Take that up with the history of philosophy, but is this a question about Logic? Are the theories of paraconsistent logics or the laws of excluded middle this or some way in virtue of facts of psychological, not even necessarily biological features of hominids? Or even that we persuade everyone of it so? That's certainly a debate to be had — but this discussion is about what counts as valid satire, and that is a question of Rhetoric, not Logic. And psychologism is a question about Logic, a question thought to be settled like a century ago. Like the Sokal Hoax, it doesn't change the illogic of No True Scotsman. Feminism absolutely means something, and it doesn't boil down to some artifact of the history of feminism. Can it change its meaning? — Inevitably. Is this a question about, in, within, therein Logic? Modern logic? No. Is gender equality an issue in, within, therein Logic? Modern logic? Yes. — Our politics are right fucked, and distributions show gross marginalizations across demographics. But is this a problem of Logic? — Again: No. [0]: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/psychologism/#ConSto http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/psychologism/#ConSto
- aaronem 13y ago
  Losethos? Is that you?
yetanotherphd 13y ago
The fundamental issue of C+= is the line between legitimate political discourse and offensive material is very subjective and political, and yet it is treated like it is an objective matter by the companies who censor C+=. They are basically saying "you can have any opinion you like, but if the left deems this opinion to be offensive, then it is no longer legitimate political expression". Furthermore, some people on the left add a completely wrong notion that if you criticize group X, and someone else harasses or threatens someone from group X, then all criticism of group X is complicit in this harassment.
mherkender 13y ago
> There is no formal definition of feminism, and everybody that claims something stupid under it's name just hurts it. A feminist advocates or supports the rights and equality of women. Full stop.
- lawl 13y ago
  That's what I thought. And then a huge flamewar emerged in IRC about how equality is wrong. It should be comparability not equality. Because eqaulity would mean men == women. So the rights shouldn't be equal but comparable, because mixed soccer leagues would be unfair. It went then on in a discussion if the idea of comparability isn't maybe patriarchic because in studying performance between gender there has been no significant statistical difference etc. etc. So no. You're wrong.
  - mherkender 13y ago
    How can I be wrong about the dictionary definition of a word?
    - lawl 13y ago
      Touché. But you understand what I'm getting at. Even if you take the dictionary definition there is still a lot of room for interpretation. Who defines what equality exactly includes? And please don't post the definition of equality now ;-) I can't change the pastebin now.
      - mherkender 13y ago
        I'm an atheist, and there are atheists I don't agree with, but there isn't one way to be an atheist and I don't really expect anything from them except to not believe in god. I see feminism to be the same way, and I think you expect too much uniformity from it. Gender equality (I'll spare you the definition) includes many things, so I'm not sure how to explain it better than that, but I do think it includes not having unfairly strong, negative reactions to anything involving feminism and the common topics this kind of forum has.
Myrmornis 13y ago
I think Arielle Schlessinger was just an early stage grad student (a clue in that she doesn't use the word "normative" correctly), so she shouldn't be blamed too much for publicly disseminating pretentious nonsense. But the more senior person posting below her, Cathy Davidson, should have known better. In any case same criticism of both: they are damaging, not enhancing, women's opportunities in technical fields by seeking to associate absurd cultural theory with the advancement of women's roles in technical subjects. The sorts of women who will succeed in technical subjects will laugh/dispair at them, just like the sorts of men who will succeed.

13 points by lawl 13y ago

The dialects of technologism emerge. Look. If you want to get into modern research on Logic, see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-free/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-free/ and http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/. This entire discussion falls under Rhetoric, or metacognition anyway; on its worst days, Politics, often codified in polemics. Nevertheless, Psychologism has been abandoned in modern conceptions of Logic[0]. Now is Psychologism true or false? Take that up with the history of philosophy, but is this a question about Logic? Are the theories of paraconsistent logics or the laws of excluded middle this or some way in virtue of facts of psychological, not even necessarily biological features of hominids? Or even that we persuade everyone of it so? That's certainly a debate to be had — but this discussion is about what counts as valid satire, and that is a question of Rhetoric, not Logic. And psychologism is a question about Logic, a question thought to be settled like a century ago. Like the Sokal Hoax, it doesn't change the illogic of No True Scotsman. Feminism absolutely means something, and it doesn't boil down to some artifact of the history of feminism. Can it change its meaning? — Inevitably. Is this a question about, in, within, therein Logic? Modern logic? No. Is gender equality an issue in, within, therein Logic? Modern logic? Yes. — Our politics are right fucked, and distributions show gross marginalizations across demographics. But is this a problem of Logic? — Again: No. [0]: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/psychologism/#ConSto http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/psychologism/#ConSto

aaronem 13y ago
Losethos? Is that you?

yetanotherphd 13y ago

The fundamental issue of C+= is the line between legitimate political discourse and offensive material is very subjective and political, and yet it is treated like it is an objective matter by the companies who censor C+=. They are basically saying "you can have any opinion you like, but if the left deems this opinion to be offensive, then it is no longer legitimate political expression". Furthermore, some people on the left add a completely wrong notion that if you criticize group X, and someone else harasses or threatens someone from group X, then all criticism of group X is complicit in this harassment.

mherkender 13y ago

> There is no formal definition of feminism, and everybody that claims something stupid under it's name just hurts it. A feminist advocates or supports the rights and equality of women. Full stop.

lawl 13y ago
That's what I thought. And then a huge flamewar emerged in IRC about how equality is wrong. It should be comparability not equality. Because eqaulity would mean men == women. So the rights shouldn't be equal but comparable, because mixed soccer leagues would be unfair. It went then on in a discussion if the idea of comparability isn't maybe patriarchic because in studying performance between gender there has been no significant statistical difference etc. etc. So no. You're wrong.
- mherkender 13y ago
  How can I be wrong about the dictionary definition of a word?
  - lawl 13y ago
    Touché. But you understand what I'm getting at. Even if you take the dictionary definition there is still a lot of room for interpretation. Who defines what equality exactly includes? And please don't post the definition of equality now ;-) I can't change the pastebin now.
    - mherkender 13y ago
      I'm an atheist, and there are atheists I don't agree with, but there isn't one way to be an atheist and I don't really expect anything from them except to not believe in god. I see feminism to be the same way, and I think you expect too much uniformity from it. Gender equality (I'll spare you the definition) includes many things, so I'm not sure how to explain it better than that, but I do think it includes not having unfairly strong, negative reactions to anything involving feminism and the common topics this kind of forum has.

Myrmornis 13y ago

I think Arielle Schlessinger was just an early stage grad student (a clue in that she doesn't use the word "normative" correctly), so she shouldn't be blamed too much for publicly disseminating pretentious nonsense. But the more senior person posting below her, Cathy Davidson, should have known better. In any case same criticism of both: they are damaging, not enhancing, women's opportunities in technical fields by seeking to associate absurd cultural theory with the advancement of women's roles in technical subjects. The sorts of women who will succeed in technical subjects will laugh/dispair at them, just like the sorts of men who will succeed.