4 ms·

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 nor

by 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/
- Kalium 12y ago
  I was being charitable and attempting to offer food for thought. I now understand that both were in error. I happen to entertain the fringe belief that call-out culture is unhealthy and serves to further the problems it purports to address. I can see that you do not share this belief. Good day to you.
  - wpietri 12y ago
    Oh, please. We both believe in using words to discourage expression of certain beliefs and limit particular behaviors. Which is why you're talking to me in the first place. Saying that you don't believe in "call-out culture" while calling me out for calling somebody out just means that you object to it being done by people who you disagree with politically. "Call-out culture" is only novel to the extent to which previously marginalized people can collaborate and talk to people in dominant group as peers. Also, your claim that you were being "charitable" is obviously disingenuous. How kind of you, so rich in thought, to donate your pearls of wisdom to the impoverished thinkers with regrettably different politics than yours. I only hope you have more time in the future to condescend to me while ignoring my actual points. If you were all that serious about addressing the problems that you see "call-out culture" as attempting but failing to solve, I expect you'd be doing something about it besides tsk-tsking and making tone arguments. Otherwise, though, the simple explanation is that this is garden-variety concern trolling on your part. So yes, feel free to good-day yourself right on out of my replies.

by Kalium 12y ago

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/

Kalium 12y ago
I was being charitable and attempting to offer food for thought. I now understand that both were in error. I happen to entertain the fringe belief that call-out culture is unhealthy and serves to further the problems it purports to address. I can see that you do not share this belief. Good day to you.
- wpietri 12y ago
  Oh, please. We both believe in using words to discourage expression of certain beliefs and limit particular behaviors. Which is why you're talking to me in the first place. Saying that you don't believe in "call-out culture" while calling me out for calling somebody out just means that you object to it being done by people who you disagree with politically. "Call-out culture" is only novel to the extent to which previously marginalized people can collaborate and talk to people in dominant group as peers. Also, your claim that you were being "charitable" is obviously disingenuous. How kind of you, so rich in thought, to donate your pearls of wisdom to the impoverished thinkers with regrettably different politics than yours. I only hope you have more time in the future to condescend to me while ignoring my actual points. If you were all that serious about addressing the problems that you see "call-out culture" as attempting but failing to solve, I expect you'd be doing something about it besides tsk-tsking and making tone arguments. Otherwise, though, the simple explanation is that this is garden-variety concern trolling on your part. So yes, feel free to good-day yourself right on out of my replies.