7 ms·

He knows what systemic means in this context. yummyfajitas's shtick is to try to dismiss or derail any discussion of social issues by repeatedly posing disingen

He knows what systemic means in this context. yummyfajitas's shtick is to try to dismiss or derail any discussion of social issues by repeatedly posing disingenuous semantic questions

yummyfajitas 12y ago
Or maybe I'm trying to understand. Discussions like this involve a lot of jargon, non-standard definitions and hidden (or nonexistent?) moral assumptions. I do this in all sorts of discussions when I don't understand the terms. "We want to increase engagement." "How do you define engagement?" "We want the estimator to be robust." "How do you define robust?" You can call a request for clarification of terms "derailing" (or just flag me and call me racist, as many people do), but that makes it look like you simply want to avoid clarity. Asking for clear statements of claims and definitions of terms isn't derailing - it's simply good practice if your goal is understanding.
- dalke 12y ago
  Says the person who thinks that "Disputing definitions is pointless", and implies that definition_yummyfajitas is no worse than any other definition.
  - yummyfajitas 12y ago
    Asking what a person means when they use a word is not pointless - it's the only way to understand what they believe about the world. If you say "sound" and precisely define it as "auditory perceptions by a human", I then understand what you mean when you say "a tree falls in the forest and makes no sound". If you don't define "sound", then I might think you mean "a tree falling in the forest creates no vibrations in the air". In contrast, using the word "vibrations" or "fred" instead of "sound" doesn't change the physical behavior of the air. That's why disputing definitions is pointless.
    - dalke 12y ago
      Okay, what do you think "systemic" means? What does "pointless" mean to you? What's a "vibration"? Are you a 'person' and how can I tell? You just used all those words, and I would like you to educate me.
      - yummyfajitas 12y ago
        Pointless means we'll achieve nothing by doing it. I don't know what "systemic" means which is why I asked. A vibration is an oscillation in a medium.
- pron 12y ago
  Come on, fajitas, enough. I mean, you're not really "trying to understand", now are you? Last time we had a similar discussion, I told you that you should read some books/articles. Clearly you haven't. Your comments are no different from someone going to a graduate physics symposium and telling people, "Why are you using all this jargon? Tunneling? That means digging a tunnel through rock! And why are you using 'spin' and 'color' wrong? Please, I just want to understand!" Well, just like Quantum Physics can't be explained in full in a HN comment, so can't history, economy, social work. So please. Either learn a little bit more about the subject, understand that the explanations you are given here are just small snippets of a much larger field of study (and reality), accept that you might not fully understand the terms, or stop making these juvenile comments over and over.
  - barry-cotter 12y ago
    >Come on, fajitas, enough. I mean, you're not really "trying to understand", now are you? Last time we had a similar discussion, I told you that you should read some books/articles. If you're trying to get people to believe things about society you're propagating an ideology, implicit or explicit. You should expect to get pushback on that all the time unless you're preaching to the converted. Systemic is like privileged; there's a real, defensible academic sociological meaning. when used outside of that narrow context it's used as a stick to beat one's opponent with, to proclaim moral superiority and display tribal membership. You should not expect people not already of your political persuasion to be persuaded by jargon you don't care to explain. It's like a Catholic theologian expecting to convert a Muslim one by argument. "It all totally makes sense once you read this bookshelf."
    - pron 12y ago
      Sure, there are sciences that don't convince people -- biology, climate science, and sociology to name a few -- and are considered by many to be ideologies. And, indeed, when I "preach" the realities of biology to the unconverted (and there are so many) I get exactly this kind of pushback, which I fully expect. This is what happens when reality disagrees with people's well-entrenched views of it, often created by being exposed to very narrow glimpses of it (reality, that is). But while I often discuss the realities of our world with those who are intentionally ignorant, I find the kind of "pushback" you see here to be the most interesting and entertaining. The "unconverted" in this case, uses what he (and it is almost invariable a he, and a young he in most cases) considers science (or scientific thinking) to fight against other sciences, and chooses to ignore the fact that in the realms of intractable math, definitions are often open to debate, or at least discussion, and that does not make them any less valid. For instance, did you know that even in biology (which yummyfajitas might or might not consider a science, I don't know), one of the most basic definitions -- at the very core of the science -- is not so clear-cut, and, in fact, stands in complete contradiction to other well-established facts concerning itself and even to its own definition? And yet, scientists involved in the field are able to look past such things, as they know physics-level rigorous definitions won't help their science in this case. I am talking, of course, about the term "species". While there is a sorta/kinda definition of a species, it is an undisputed fact that any organism belongs to the same species as its direct ancestor(s) -- hence an immediate contradiction. Yet, biologists understand this fuzzy notion of species and go about their business. The reason is that in the intractable sciences (biology, sociology, and even climate), it is often useful to describe a present state, even if the process that originated it is not fully understood. Thus is the nature of intractability. And, after all, we're not debating ideas here -- we're debating facts. And when facts are debated, I tend to believe those who have actually studied them rather than those who haven't and just wish they weren't true. A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again. So, if fajitas chooses not to drink deep, he should at least stop arguing with those who do.

He knows what systemic means in this context. yummyfajitas's shtick is to try to dismiss or derail any discussion of social issues by repeatedly posing disingenuous semantic questions

yummyfajitas 12y ago

Or maybe I'm trying to understand. Discussions like this involve a lot of jargon, non-standard definitions and hidden (or nonexistent?) moral assumptions. I do this in all sorts of discussions when I don't understand the terms. "We want to increase engagement." "How do you define engagement?" "We want the estimator to be robust." "How do you define robust?" You can call a request for clarification of terms "derailing" (or just flag me and call me racist, as many people do), but that makes it look like you simply want to avoid clarity. Asking for clear statements of claims and definitions of terms isn't derailing - it's simply good practice if your goal is understanding.

dalke 12y ago
Says the person who thinks that "Disputing definitions is pointless", and implies that definition_yummyfajitas is no worse than any other definition.
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  Asking what a person means when they use a word is not pointless - it's the only way to understand what they believe about the world. If you say "sound" and precisely define it as "auditory perceptions by a human", I then understand what you mean when you say "a tree falls in the forest and makes no sound". If you don't define "sound", then I might think you mean "a tree falling in the forest creates no vibrations in the air". In contrast, using the word "vibrations" or "fred" instead of "sound" doesn't change the physical behavior of the air. That's why disputing definitions is pointless.
  - dalke 12y ago
    Okay, what do you think "systemic" means? What does "pointless" mean to you? What's a "vibration"? Are you a 'person' and how can I tell? You just used all those words, and I would like you to educate me.
    - yummyfajitas 12y ago
      Pointless means we'll achieve nothing by doing it. I don't know what "systemic" means which is why I asked. A vibration is an oscillation in a medium.
pron 12y ago
Come on, fajitas, enough. I mean, you're not really "trying to understand", now are you? Last time we had a similar discussion, I told you that you should read some books/articles. Clearly you haven't. Your comments are no different from someone going to a graduate physics symposium and telling people, "Why are you using all this jargon? Tunneling? That means digging a tunnel through rock! And why are you using 'spin' and 'color' wrong? Please, I just want to understand!" Well, just like Quantum Physics can't be explained in full in a HN comment, so can't history, economy, social work. So please. Either learn a little bit more about the subject, understand that the explanations you are given here are just small snippets of a much larger field of study (and reality), accept that you might not fully understand the terms, or stop making these juvenile comments over and over.
- barry-cotter 12y ago
  >Come on, fajitas, enough. I mean, you're not really "trying to understand", now are you? Last time we had a similar discussion, I told you that you should read some books/articles. If you're trying to get people to believe things about society you're propagating an ideology, implicit or explicit. You should expect to get pushback on that all the time unless you're preaching to the converted. Systemic is like privileged; there's a real, defensible academic sociological meaning. when used outside of that narrow context it's used as a stick to beat one's opponent with, to proclaim moral superiority and display tribal membership. You should not expect people not already of your political persuasion to be persuaded by jargon you don't care to explain. It's like a Catholic theologian expecting to convert a Muslim one by argument. "It all totally makes sense once you read this bookshelf."
  - pron 12y ago
    Sure, there are sciences that don't convince people -- biology, climate science, and sociology to name a few -- and are considered by many to be ideologies. And, indeed, when I "preach" the realities of biology to the unconverted (and there are so many) I get exactly this kind of pushback, which I fully expect. This is what happens when reality disagrees with people's well-entrenched views of it, often created by being exposed to very narrow glimpses of it (reality, that is). But while I often discuss the realities of our world with those who are intentionally ignorant, I find the kind of "pushback" you see here to be the most interesting and entertaining. The "unconverted" in this case, uses what he (and it is almost invariable a he, and a young he in most cases) considers science (or scientific thinking) to fight against other sciences, and chooses to ignore the fact that in the realms of intractable math, definitions are often open to debate, or at least discussion, and that does not make them any less valid. For instance, did you know that even in biology (which yummyfajitas might or might not consider a science, I don't know), one of the most basic definitions -- at the very core of the science -- is not so clear-cut, and, in fact, stands in complete contradiction to other well-established facts concerning itself and even to its own definition? And yet, scientists involved in the field are able to look past such things, as they know physics-level rigorous definitions won't help their science in this case. I am talking, of course, about the term "species". While there is a sorta/kinda definition of a species, it is an undisputed fact that any organism belongs to the same species as its direct ancestor(s) -- hence an immediate contradiction. Yet, biologists understand this fuzzy notion of species and go about their business. The reason is that in the intractable sciences (biology, sociology, and even climate), it is often useful to describe a present state, even if the process that originated it is not fully understood. Thus is the nature of intractability. And, after all, we're not debating ideas here -- we're debating facts. And when facts are debated, I tend to believe those who have actually studied them rather than those who haven't and just wish they weren't true. A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again. So, if fajitas chooses not to drink deep, he should at least stop arguing with those who do.