3 ms·

Are you aware that you have not only failed to educate people, but you have only taught them that voicing an opinion that you don't agree with will bring dispro

by Kalium 12y ago

Are you aware that you have not only failed to educate people, but you have only taught them that voicing an opinion that you don't agree with will bring disproportionately furious rebuke? A serious question: do you think you will change how people behave by acting in this way?

wpietri 12y ago
I think the implied ground for your comment is that everybody's opinion is valuable and should be heard. So let me sketch my quick hierarchy of opinions here. First, there are informed opinions versus uninformed ones. I am happy to talk with people who have informed opinions even when we disagree. Next, there are naively uninformed opinions versus lazily or willfully uninformed opinions. For example, suppose somebody says, "Hey, I'm a high school student thinking of going into tech, and don't understand all this recent discussion about diversity. Can somebody help me out?" I am also very happy to talk with that person; there's no shame in being honestly ignorant but eager to learn. (Most of the time I'm even glad to give the lazy or mildly willful people a chance, although my experience suggests it rarely helps, at least right away.) Beneath that we have willfully uninformed opinions presented in a way that actively harms the discussion. When somebody doesn't know what's going on, doesn't want to, and perhaps doesn't even want people talking about the topic, then yes, I actually don't want them in this discussion right now. For the record I believe my reply is proportionately angry. It's a serious problem that harms both the field and actual individuals. We have been discussing it for decades. (Note also that quibbling about tone itself has a long history in these discussions: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument ) So, serious answer: Yes I hope that a) I will reduce the frequency with which the last category of opinion is deployed to halt or degrade useful discussion, b) more people will be able to recognize a particular dumb argument as a dumb argument, and c) some of the lazily or willfully ignorant will actually try to understand the context before opining.
- Kalium 12y ago
  So, serious response: you are perpetuating the notion that it's acceptable to attempt to silence an opinion that you disagree with sufficiently. Is this the norm you wish to encourage? That it's OK to exclude people who don't think sufficiently like you? Please, do not attempt to answer. I would like you to contemplate this. It's not senseless navel-gazing and is quite significant. Also, tone matters because we're dealing with real human beings who respond to tone as well as substance. To say "That's a tone argument!" as a form of dismissal is to miss that the whole point is supposed to be persuasion.
  - wpietri 12y ago
    I like your presumption that I couldn't possibly have thought of this before. As well as your ridiculous assumed superiority in ordering me not to "attempt" to answer. Gosh golly, anon, please point out more of what's truly significant. Without you I would be lost. I think any opinion is welcome in honest dialog between people who are pursuing sincere understanding and are acting with sufficient empathy toward all participants. I also think that is about 1% of public discussion, and that it takes an immense amount of effort to create the proper preconditions for that. Outside of that, no, I think there are plenty of opinions that merit social opprobrium for their straightforward expression. And I'd bet you do, too. If you can't name 5 in the next 30 seconds, you aren't trying. Speech has consequences. And I think it has to. [1] I also think that regardless of opinion, there are ways to engage in dialog that are so harmful that they should be called out. And you think that too, or you wouldn't be giving me your more-in-sorrow, think-about-what-you've-done routine. The only difference is that we have different standards for what merits objection. I agree that tone matters, which is why I chose the tone I did. If your goal is to personally persuade every sexist goof to come to a considered realization that they have made a deep mistake, then godspeed. (If that is your goal, though then your recent comments history doesn't show you working very hard at that.) But that's not my goal. My goal is to fix the goddamn problem. It's hurting my field, it's hurting people I know, and it's hurting a lot of people I don't know. I want the ongoing harm to end. History suggests that a lot of people never get over the idiotic opinions they grew up around. This is true even for very smart people; Planck wrote, "A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." So consider today's KKK. Do I want everybody to be not racist? Yes. Would I like every member of the KKK to realize that they have been assholes all their lives and start making up for lost time? Sure. If some rando starts talking to me about the inferiority of black people, am I going to patiently talk to him about what the research really shows? Fuck no. I am going to tell him that he's an asshole, and that I don't want to hear his racist bullshit around me. If he ever wonders why, he can hop on Wikipedia and read a little history. He won't, of course, because the problem here isn't primarily his ideas; it's his biases. [1] See, e.g.: https://www.popehat.com/2013/09/10/speech-and-consequences/ https://www.popehat.com/2013/09/10/speech-and-consequences/

by Kalium 12y ago

wpietri 12y ago

I think the implied ground for your comment is that everybody's opinion is valuable and should be heard. So let me sketch my quick hierarchy of opinions here. First, there are informed opinions versus uninformed ones. I am happy to talk with people who have informed opinions even when we disagree. Next, there are naively uninformed opinions versus lazily or willfully uninformed opinions. For example, suppose somebody says, "Hey, I'm a high school student thinking of going into tech, and don't understand all this recent discussion about diversity. Can somebody help me out?" I am also very happy to talk with that person; there's no shame in being honestly ignorant but eager to learn. (Most of the time I'm even glad to give the lazy or mildly willful people a chance, although my experience suggests it rarely helps, at least right away.) Beneath that we have willfully uninformed opinions presented in a way that actively harms the discussion. When somebody doesn't know what's going on, doesn't want to, and perhaps doesn't even want people talking about the topic, then yes, I actually don't want them in this discussion right now. For the record I believe my reply is proportionately angry. It's a serious problem that harms both the field and actual individuals. We have been discussing it for decades. (Note also that quibbling about tone itself has a long history in these discussions: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument ) So, serious answer: Yes I hope that a) I will reduce the frequency with which the last category of opinion is deployed to halt or degrade useful discussion, b) more people will be able to recognize a particular dumb argument as a dumb argument, and c) some of the lazily or willfully ignorant will actually try to understand the context before opining.

Kalium 12y ago
So, serious response: you are perpetuating the notion that it's acceptable to attempt to silence an opinion that you disagree with sufficiently. Is this the norm you wish to encourage? That it's OK to exclude people who don't think sufficiently like you? Please, do not attempt to answer. I would like you to contemplate this. It's not senseless navel-gazing and is quite significant. Also, tone matters because we're dealing with real human beings who respond to tone as well as substance. To say "That's a tone argument!" as a form of dismissal is to miss that the whole point is supposed to be persuasion.
- wpietri 12y ago
  I like your presumption that I couldn't possibly have thought of this before. As well as your ridiculous assumed superiority in ordering me not to "attempt" to answer. Gosh golly, anon, please point out more of what's truly significant. Without you I would be lost. I think any opinion is welcome in honest dialog between people who are pursuing sincere understanding and are acting with sufficient empathy toward all participants. I also think that is about 1% of public discussion, and that it takes an immense amount of effort to create the proper preconditions for that. Outside of that, no, I think there are plenty of opinions that merit social opprobrium for their straightforward expression. And I'd bet you do, too. If you can't name 5 in the next 30 seconds, you aren't trying. Speech has consequences. And I think it has to. [1] I also think that regardless of opinion, there are ways to engage in dialog that are so harmful that they should be called out. And you think that too, or you wouldn't be giving me your more-in-sorrow, think-about-what-you've-done routine. The only difference is that we have different standards for what merits objection. I agree that tone matters, which is why I chose the tone I did. If your goal is to personally persuade every sexist goof to come to a considered realization that they have made a deep mistake, then godspeed. (If that is your goal, though then your recent comments history doesn't show you working very hard at that.) But that's not my goal. My goal is to fix the goddamn problem. It's hurting my field, it's hurting people I know, and it's hurting a lot of people I don't know. I want the ongoing harm to end. History suggests that a lot of people never get over the idiotic opinions they grew up around. This is true even for very smart people; Planck wrote, "A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." So consider today's KKK. Do I want everybody to be not racist? Yes. Would I like every member of the KKK to realize that they have been assholes all their lives and start making up for lost time? Sure. If some rando starts talking to me about the inferiority of black people, am I going to patiently talk to him about what the research really shows? Fuck no. I am going to tell him that he's an asshole, and that I don't want to hear his racist bullshit around me. If he ever wonders why, he can hop on Wikipedia and read a little history. He won't, of course, because the problem here isn't primarily his ideas; it's his biases. [1] See, e.g.: https://www.popehat.com/2013/09/10/speech-and-consequences/ https://www.popehat.com/2013/09/10/speech-and-consequences/