14 ms·

Every time I try to argue for intellectual honesty, I get labeled “part of the problem”. Every time I try to encourage people to listen to others and treat them

Every time I try to argue for intellectual honesty, I get labeled “part of the problem”. Every time I try to encourage people to listen to others and treat them equally because it’s a good thing to do and not because they identify as a feminist, I am met with hostility. If I make friends with someone of a different background than me and then mention them at all in a discussion about equality, I am accused of tokenism, because I’m cis-het white male scum (hey, thanks for asking, but I’m not all those). I am tired of this abusive rhetoric. I want real feminism, real equality, whatever label you want to use, and it starts with treating people with respect and conducting honest dialogue.

bonesmoses 12y ago
Ironically, by dismissing your input because of your race or gender, they are engaging in the exact behavior they are purportedly against. That kind of juvenile hypocrisy should be avoided by everyone, but sadly, is not.
- gaius 12y ago
  I don't mind people believing that men have no right to speak on gender issues - it's a free country, people can believe anything they want to believe, and even say it out loud. But if that person is white and has a lot to say on race issues anyway, or went to a $40,000/year liberal arts college and majored in something with no vocational application, and speaks about poverty, then I think they maybe don't have an entirely logically consistent philosophy behind them.
  - bonesmoses 12y ago
    Unfortunately that's not where it ends. I wish it was only gender or sociological issues. Beyond that, you don't have to be poor, or female, or black, or... etc., to understand empathy. In a world where empathy didn't exist, maybe they would have a point. But humans can and do empathize, and can bring in elements from that divergent background to improve the overall situation. But only if the discussion isn't cut off with, "STFU, what do you know!?"
- Cthulhu_ 12y ago
  They've just redefined what it means to be feminist, liberal, or whatever the opposite of racist is, and taken it to a left-wing extremist position. It's their Nietzsche's Übermensch, just anything but white, male, straight, etc - which in effect makes the murder advocates just as bad as the nazi's or any entity that advocated ethnic cleansings. At least they're still at just words now.
- bakhy 12y ago
  > exact behavior they are purportedly against This is the worst kind of rhetoric. Probably all groups who were ever oppressed suffered a little bit more than just people criticizing them. I guess your empathy did not go far enough to realize that?
  - atlantic 12y ago
    What he's saying is that all oppressed groups suffer from prejudice before all else. Prejudice is the facilitator for all forms of oppressive behaviour. And prejudice against the supposedly privileged is a prejudice like any other. No rhetoric there.
    - bakhy 12y ago
      yes, prejudice is prejudice. and prejudice may be a facilitator of oppression (although one could talk of chicken and egg here). but prejudice is still NOT oppression. it takes more than prejudice for oppression to take place. some people, you may be surprised, go through a lot more than just experiencing occasional stereotyping. take this example - while a lot of str8 men may now be worried someone will falsely accuse them of being sexist or homophobes, I literally do not know a single gay person (I'm gay, I know a few gay people) that did not experience physical or verbal violence at least once.
- mkr-hn 12y ago
  It's an overcorrection for the tendency of people without an experience to speak for and over people who have the experience. Think of it like someone speaking on something technical with no relevant technical background. If near 100% of the time they were wrong, you might wish they'd just not talk about it.
fweespeech 12y ago
You don't want to hold up the author as intellectually honest. He sneaks in a propaganda organ on par with the Party from 1984 as one of his sources without admitting that is what they are. :/ http://www.leadershipinstitute.org/aboutus/ http://www.leadershipinstitute.org/aboutus/ runs some of what he is using as "evidence". They are pretty clearly a political organization with an agenda. If the author wasn't in the same vein, he'd have disclosed that or used someone else. --- EDIT: For example this guy: > Your post feels eerily reminiscent of pro-industry conservatives pointing at snow and saying,"Global Climate Shift is a fallacy!" Maybe he used a poor source (though i think you'd have a hard time finding any data aggregator that does not have some political lean), but amongst how many credible ones? In my industry, the last day on the job is all that matters. On a 50 day job, 49 perfects mean nothing if the one bad one is on the last day. I always hated this; IMO it has no place in logical debate/discussion. Since I'm rate limited and people are making various claims I'm going to point this out: It isn't a "data aggregator with a political leaning", it is literally owned by an institution founded exclusively to further a single political party. http://www.leadershipinstitute.org/campus/activism.cfm?Idea=81 http://www.leadershipinstitute.org/campus/activism.cfm?Idea=... > Over 30,000 scientists have signed a petition, publicly voicing their dissent over the consensus regarding climate change. - See more at: http://www.leadershipinstitute.org/campus/activism.cfm?Idea=81#sthash.9OlZIp6f.dpuf http://www.leadershipinstitute.org/campus/activism.cfm?Idea=... If you actually look at the list you find a bunch of people like these folks: > Donald R. Buechel, MD, Walter R. Buerger, MD They strongly imply its "climate scientists" when in reality its anyone they can claim has a Phd. These are trained liars who lie through omission regularly. That isn't anywhere near "the same" as a newspaper with a political leaning. To hold them up as a source when you claim you are being intellectually honest [and not disclosing what they are] really is dishonest.
- evincarofautumn 12y ago
  Fair enough. I (largely) agree with the article as written and know nothing about the author or their views beyond this.
- zxcvcxz 12y ago
  Well every feminist I've ever gotten into a debate with eventually links to the "geek feminism wiki" as some kind of irrefutable source of proof of misogyny when in reality anyone and everyone can edit it. This article isn't nearly as bad as the "pro-feminist" stuff I see all the time.
wpietri 12y ago
Hi! Cis-het white dude here. That you come in arguing is likely part of the problem. That you have constructed your point of view as the intellectually honest one, making your conversational partners the un-intellectual, dishonest ones, is surely another part. What your approach doesn't acknowledge is the historical inequality, and the system by which that inequality is maintained. Just by virtue of being a comfortable white dude, I already get listened to way more than somebody less historically favored. And if I want, I can use that power to harm discussion of the systemic problems that give me that power. Anybody in a disfavored group has experience that misuse of power about a zillion times. It's such a popular activity that there are mocking how-to guides for the powerful, like Derailing for Dummies. So when people pop in to a discussion saying, "Hold on there, ladies; you seem hysterical. Let's calm down and listen to the white men for once," it's infuriating, because a) they are pretty familiar with the dominant perspective, and b) it is an exhibition of the unearned power that they are directly working against. As a white dude, I get that this sucks. I am used to being heard, so not being heard feels unfair. But because I want real equality, I put on my big boy pants, shut my opinion-hole, and listen to people who are different than me. And in doing that, I've come to a much better understanding of what real equality means and how much hard work it will take us all to get there.
- Moshe_Silnorin 12y ago
  You type so much and say nothing at all.
  - wpietri 12y ago
    I'm open to constructive criticism, but I'm not seeing much here. Would you care to try again? I think I said some very specific things.
    - Karunamon 12y ago
      Constructive criticism: The content of ideas is infinitely more important than the identity of the person speaking the ideas. To deny this is to deny basic rationality, and is infinitely more harmful on a longer time scale. That you come in arguing is likely part of the problem. There is no such thing as an idea that is above criticism. The problem here, the one highlighted by the article, is that the radicals being complained about disagree with both of these concepts - things which are the cornerstone of an open dialogue, which is the cornerstone of a healthy society. With that in mind, how can you simultaneously hold the dissonant beliefs that rationality is important, and that one of its primary tenets should be ignored?
zamalek 12y ago
Be very careful about how you interact with these people, the mere act of following a person on Twitter who disagrees with them can land you up on a list that makes you unemployable. They claim to be feminists, and because that is a real issue today people believe them by default; without ever questioning whether they are the extremists in ways that the article explains. The sad truth is that they are damaging the very movements that they claim to support: legitimate victims of discrimination are voiceless against the deafening noise of "wolf! Wolf!"
- caseysoftware 12y ago
  These lists have started coming under fire in the UK for libel. I don't know if it will get any traction but my understanding is the standard there is much lower than in the US.
  - Joeboy 12y ago
    What lists are we talking about here? I don't know about this. In general, I doubt it's realistically possible to keep a list of names off the internet. Edit: Mystery downvotes are always appreciated, but I would be interested in an answer as well.
    - caseysoftware 12y ago
      No clue how valid their standing is, but here's some coverage of the (planned?) lawsuits: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/03/20/bbc-featured-block-bot-runs-into-legal-trouble/ http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/03/20/bbc-featured-bloc... http://www.notpauciloquent.net/2015/03/20/theblockbot-is-being-sued-for-slander-and-libel/ http://www.notpauciloquent.net/2015/03/20/theblockbot-is-bei... I haven't followed it closely enough to know the status of any suits.
    - zamalek 12y ago
      > interested in an answer as well. Casey's answer is what I was on about. A good amount of employers in a specific industry (will not name it, as that could result in a fight) will not employ based on whether you appear in those lists.

bonesmoses 12y ago

Ironically, by dismissing your input because of your race or gender, they are engaging in the exact behavior they are purportedly against. That kind of juvenile hypocrisy should be avoided by everyone, but sadly, is not.

gaius 12y ago
I don't mind people believing that men have no right to speak on gender issues - it's a free country, people can believe anything they want to believe, and even say it out loud. But if that person is white and has a lot to say on race issues anyway, or went to a $40,000/year liberal arts college and majored in something with no vocational application, and speaks about poverty, then I think they maybe don't have an entirely logically consistent philosophy behind them.
- bonesmoses 12y ago
  Unfortunately that's not where it ends. I wish it was only gender or sociological issues. Beyond that, you don't have to be poor, or female, or black, or... etc., to understand empathy. In a world where empathy didn't exist, maybe they would have a point. But humans can and do empathize, and can bring in elements from that divergent background to improve the overall situation. But only if the discussion isn't cut off with, "STFU, what do you know!?"
Cthulhu_ 12y ago
They've just redefined what it means to be feminist, liberal, or whatever the opposite of racist is, and taken it to a left-wing extremist position. It's their Nietzsche's Übermensch, just anything but white, male, straight, etc - which in effect makes the murder advocates just as bad as the nazi's or any entity that advocated ethnic cleansings. At least they're still at just words now.
bakhy 12y ago
> exact behavior they are purportedly against This is the worst kind of rhetoric. Probably all groups who were ever oppressed suffered a little bit more than just people criticizing them. I guess your empathy did not go far enough to realize that?
- atlantic 12y ago
  What he's saying is that all oppressed groups suffer from prejudice before all else. Prejudice is the facilitator for all forms of oppressive behaviour. And prejudice against the supposedly privileged is a prejudice like any other. No rhetoric there.
  - bakhy 12y ago
    yes, prejudice is prejudice. and prejudice may be a facilitator of oppression (although one could talk of chicken and egg here). but prejudice is still NOT oppression. it takes more than prejudice for oppression to take place. some people, you may be surprised, go through a lot more than just experiencing occasional stereotyping. take this example - while a lot of str8 men may now be worried someone will falsely accuse them of being sexist or homophobes, I literally do not know a single gay person (I'm gay, I know a few gay people) that did not experience physical or verbal violence at least once.
mkr-hn 12y ago
It's an overcorrection for the tendency of people without an experience to speak for and over people who have the experience. Think of it like someone speaking on something technical with no relevant technical background. If near 100% of the time they were wrong, you might wish they'd just not talk about it.

fweespeech 12y ago

You don't want to hold up the author as intellectually honest. He sneaks in a propaganda organ on par with the Party from 1984 as one of his sources without admitting that is what they are. :/ http://www.leadershipinstitute.org/aboutus/ http://www.leadershipinstitute.org/aboutus/ runs some of what he is using as "evidence". They are pretty clearly a political organization with an agenda. If the author wasn't in the same vein, he'd have disclosed that or used someone else. --- EDIT: For example this guy: > Your post feels eerily reminiscent of pro-industry conservatives pointing at snow and saying,"Global Climate Shift is a fallacy!" Maybe he used a poor source (though i think you'd have a hard time finding any data aggregator that does not have some political lean), but amongst how many credible ones? In my industry, the last day on the job is all that matters. On a 50 day job, 49 perfects mean nothing if the one bad one is on the last day. I always hated this; IMO it has no place in logical debate/discussion. Since I'm rate limited and people are making various claims I'm going to point this out: It isn't a "data aggregator with a political leaning", it is literally owned by an institution founded exclusively to further a single political party. http://www.leadershipinstitute.org/campus/activism.cfm?Idea=81 http://www.leadershipinstitute.org/campus/activism.cfm?Idea=... > Over 30,000 scientists have signed a petition, publicly voicing their dissent over the consensus regarding climate change. - See more at: http://www.leadershipinstitute.org/campus/activism.cfm?Idea=81#sthash.9OlZIp6f.dpuf http://www.leadershipinstitute.org/campus/activism.cfm?Idea=... If you actually look at the list you find a bunch of people like these folks: > Donald R. Buechel, MD, Walter R. Buerger, MD They strongly imply its "climate scientists" when in reality its anyone they can claim has a Phd. These are trained liars who lie through omission regularly. That isn't anywhere near "the same" as a newspaper with a political leaning. To hold them up as a source when you claim you are being intellectually honest [and not disclosing what they are] really is dishonest.

evincarofautumn 12y ago
Fair enough. I (largely) agree with the article as written and know nothing about the author or their views beyond this.
zxcvcxz 12y ago
Well every feminist I've ever gotten into a debate with eventually links to the "geek feminism wiki" as some kind of irrefutable source of proof of misogyny when in reality anyone and everyone can edit it. This article isn't nearly as bad as the "pro-feminist" stuff I see all the time.

wpietri 12y ago

Hi! Cis-het white dude here. That you come in arguing is likely part of the problem. That you have constructed your point of view as the intellectually honest one, making your conversational partners the un-intellectual, dishonest ones, is surely another part. What your approach doesn't acknowledge is the historical inequality, and the system by which that inequality is maintained. Just by virtue of being a comfortable white dude, I already get listened to way more than somebody less historically favored. And if I want, I can use that power to harm discussion of the systemic problems that give me that power. Anybody in a disfavored group has experience that misuse of power about a zillion times. It's such a popular activity that there are mocking how-to guides for the powerful, like Derailing for Dummies. So when people pop in to a discussion saying, "Hold on there, ladies; you seem hysterical. Let's calm down and listen to the white men for once," it's infuriating, because a) they are pretty familiar with the dominant perspective, and b) it is an exhibition of the unearned power that they are directly working against. As a white dude, I get that this sucks. I am used to being heard, so not being heard feels unfair. But because I want real equality, I put on my big boy pants, shut my opinion-hole, and listen to people who are different than me. And in doing that, I've come to a much better understanding of what real equality means and how much hard work it will take us all to get there.

Moshe_Silnorin 12y ago
You type so much and say nothing at all.
- wpietri 12y ago
  I'm open to constructive criticism, but I'm not seeing much here. Would you care to try again? I think I said some very specific things.
  - Karunamon 12y ago
    Constructive criticism: The content of ideas is infinitely more important than the identity of the person speaking the ideas. To deny this is to deny basic rationality, and is infinitely more harmful on a longer time scale. That you come in arguing is likely part of the problem. There is no such thing as an idea that is above criticism. The problem here, the one highlighted by the article, is that the radicals being complained about disagree with both of these concepts - things which are the cornerstone of an open dialogue, which is the cornerstone of a healthy society. With that in mind, how can you simultaneously hold the dissonant beliefs that rationality is important, and that one of its primary tenets should be ignored?

zamalek 12y ago

Be very careful about how you interact with these people, the mere act of following a person on Twitter who disagrees with them can land you up on a list that makes you unemployable. They claim to be feminists, and because that is a real issue today people believe them by default; without ever questioning whether they are the extremists in ways that the article explains. The sad truth is that they are damaging the very movements that they claim to support: legitimate victims of discrimination are voiceless against the deafening noise of "wolf! Wolf!"

caseysoftware 12y ago
These lists have started coming under fire in the UK for libel. I don't know if it will get any traction but my understanding is the standard there is much lower than in the US.
- Joeboy 12y ago
  What lists are we talking about here? I don't know about this. In general, I doubt it's realistically possible to keep a list of names off the internet. Edit: Mystery downvotes are always appreciated, but I would be interested in an answer as well.
  - caseysoftware 12y ago
    No clue how valid their standing is, but here's some coverage of the (planned?) lawsuits: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/03/20/bbc-featured-block-bot-runs-into-legal-trouble/ http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/03/20/bbc-featured-bloc... http://www.notpauciloquent.net/2015/03/20/theblockbot-is-being-sued-for-slander-and-libel/ http://www.notpauciloquent.net/2015/03/20/theblockbot-is-bei... I haven't followed it closely enough to know the status of any suits.
  - zamalek 12y ago
    > interested in an answer as well. Casey's answer is what I was on about. A good amount of employers in a specific industry (will not name it, as that could result in a fight) will not employ based on whether you appear in those lists.