Intellectualism: Dark and Webbed

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 23803
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Intellectualism: Dark and Webbed

Post by JasonL » 05 Jun 2019, 10:46

Shem wrote:
05 Jun 2019, 00:07
Also, back on a previous discussion, I had to do my yearly "HR for supervisors" training the other day, and I realized something about the sort of drives to punish Jason was talking about. They exist and are a thing, but they have jack to do with SJWs or anyone else in the larger society. The drive to define harassment and the like in ever-shrinking circles that catch greater and greater numbers people is a consequence of the laws leaving managers directly and civilly responsible for harassment that goes unaddressed. The HR guy who did it for us was very clear that while we are free to exercise our judgement, if we engage in a high-risk activity and get accused of something, we will receive zero support from the agency in defending ourselves. This goes even if it was an ambiguous situation that we failed to report. There's zero good-faith exception in the rules. In a circumstance like that, you're going to wind up with people self-policing and enforcing the laws in a draconian manner, just to make sure their ass is covered. And, the reason we're suddenly having a crackdown is because the previous Commissioner had a #metoo moment, and the senior leadership defended him even after it was clear what he was doing. The activists make a convenient scapegoat, but their ultimately just a symptom of the real problem; leaders ignoring the issues until they become so intolerable that the situation explodes.
See though, a) managers within many shops who have never really had a material problem with this stuff are also adopting zero tolerance, why is that; b) the explicit goal of activists is to brand destroy and litigate based on the premise of There Is No Such Thing As Good Faith. There is no gray. There is no obligation to be reasonable in any interpretation ever ever. The lawyers get brought in because these cases are being brought in volume and brand police will actively try at every turn to make "allowed a gray event with nuance to occur" into "GenocideCo!!!!!!!" My argument is precisely that the destruction of good faith spaces falls predominantly at the feet of the perpetually aggrieved. It is how they flex.

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 13334
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Intellectualism: Dark and Webbed

Post by Eric the .5b » 05 Jun 2019, 10:49

JasonL wrote:
05 Jun 2019, 10:38
Copy paste? No. The comment is applicable to this story - that OMG how dare you talk about the abuse of the term when there is suffering to talk about
Emphasis added.

OK, Warren came up short, so why don't you take a shot—where in this thread did I say this?

I mean, I know Lunch recently went on about how I do all these super-tricksy, super-abusive rhetorical judo moves like saying other things entirely than what you want to argue with, but surely that's all I'm saying, and you have me dead to rights, here?
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 23803
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Intellectualism: Dark and Webbed

Post by JasonL » 05 Jun 2019, 11:18

What does “right right the real issue is not the murdered women it’s the misuse of a word” mean? I’m legit confused. That was exactly your point?

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 13334
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Intellectualism: Dark and Webbed

Post by Eric the .5b » 05 Jun 2019, 11:42

JasonL wrote:
05 Jun 2019, 11:18
What does “right right the real issue is not the murdered women it’s the misuse of a word” mean? I’m legit confused. That was exactly your point?
That's me mocking you, dude, for your agitatedly spamming little posts about misusing the word genocide earlier this morning and for your strawmanning what I said. (And doing that so badly that I—no joke, no rhetorical trick—actually wondered if you were just lazily reposting something—multiple posts, really—you're written elsewhere.)

It's also not what you just said in your last post that I'm constantly saying:
JasonL wrote:
05 Jun 2019, 10:38
OMG how dare you talk about the abuse of the term when there is suffering to talk about
Now, are you going to actually put up and quote what you imagine is me saying anything like that, here? Because I'm not doing the usual thing where I'm gonna go round and round, page after page, with you about some dishonest characterization you've made of what I've said. You can put up, or you can fuck right off with your chickenshit, lying sniping at me.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 23803
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Intellectualism: Dark and Webbed

Post by JasonL » 05 Jun 2019, 12:49

Warren didn’t come up short he actually quoted you saying the exact thing I said you are saying - and you said none of those things means represents a view that is fucking clearly expressed in those quotes. And now you are dodging it. Just like you dodged the original question, which was the use of the term is actually shit here and SJW types should not be doing this, yes or no?

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 13334
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Intellectualism: Dark and Webbed

Post by Eric the .5b » 05 Jun 2019, 13:08

JasonL wrote:
05 Jun 2019, 12:49
Warren didn’t come up short he actually quoted you saying the exact thing I said you are saying
Sorry, you don't get to punt. I don't give a damn about anything else you have to say, or any way you want to try to weasel out of backing up your words. Put up, or fuck off.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 23803
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Intellectualism: Dark and Webbed

Post by JasonL » 05 Jun 2019, 13:18

Eric the .5b wrote:
04 Jun 2019, 21:57
However, the tone-deaf part Is ignoring the rest of the story and thousands of dead people to go on at length about one misused word, as if that's the only important part.
What does this mean? In plain English to native speakers it means "the author is tone deaf because he dared challenge the use of genocide when he should have been focusing on the suffering.
Eric the .5b wrote:
05 Jun 2019, 09:01
Right, right, Jason. The real crime's not the murdered women, it's the misuse of a word. I get it.
The mockery here, again in plain English, is I'm mocking you Jason because the real crime IS NOT the misuse of the word, it's the murdered women.

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 27736
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Intellectualism: Dark and Webbed

Post by thoreau » 05 Jun 2019, 13:22

Separate from what's argued in the Quillette article, there's a difference between a writer arguing that these deaths have moral gravity comparable to genocide (a point that at least has some reasonable arguments in its favor, irrespective of whether those arguments outweigh the counter-arguments) and Justin Trudeau (you know, the head of government) accepting a finding of genocide. If he's going to use that word seriously and without qualification, then there are potential implications under conventions that Canada has more-or-less tried to abide by.

I'm open to arguments that the "g-word" should be used in moral analysis by ordinary people, but high officials should be very careful about using it, and be particularly careful about how emphatic they're going to be in their use of the word.
"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 23803
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Intellectualism: Dark and Webbed

Post by JasonL » 05 Jun 2019, 13:23

Kind of a long, rambling opening that comes across a bit like, "Man, we're so sensitive about genocide, nowadays, but it used to be business as usual." Then he segues into a rather tone-deaf dissection of whether a systematic pattern of official disinterest in the murders of indigenous women really counts as "genocide", while not being able to come up with any reason why such hyperbole would be used other than Those Darn Emotional Leftists. (As opposed, to say, someone engaging in political rhetoric and deliberately using an incendiary word to get front-page attention to an issue that otherwise would end up getting two column inches of attention deep inside the newspaper
I mean, right here. The original comment. This doesn't require any translation at all. You are saying his focus on the technical definition of genocide is inappropriate in the face of suffering and that use of the word in that way is entirely understandable because the thing that matters is the suffering not the word use. Do you read your own posts?

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 23803
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Intellectualism: Dark and Webbed

Post by JasonL » 05 Jun 2019, 13:31

thoreau wrote:
05 Jun 2019, 13:22
Separate from what's argued in the Quillette article, there's a difference between a writer arguing that these deaths have moral gravity comparable to genocide (a point that at least has some reasonable arguments in its favor, irrespective of whether those arguments outweigh the counter-arguments) and Justin Trudeau (you know, the head of government) accepting a finding of genocide. If he's going to use that word seriously and without qualification, then there are potential implications under conventions that Canada has more-or-less tried to abide by.

I'm open to arguments that the "g-word" should be used in moral analysis by ordinary people, but high officials should be very careful about using it, and be particularly careful about how emphatic they're going to be in their use of the word.
I care less about the official definition than I do the stretch in common usage that always runs to the extremes for marginal behaviors. White nationalism, white sheets, rape culture, genocide, colonization. GTFO people should be laughed at in public every time they do this. The fact of suffering is a separate condition from what constitutes reasonable discussion of such. It is entirely okay to have a discussion about the rhetoric without AT ALL by implication or any other way diminishing suffering. Just because you suffered doesn't mean you get to claim the 10X magnitude suffering of others as your own because eff you you are diminishing the importance of the distinction that used to be in place.

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 13334
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Intellectualism: Dark and Webbed

Post by Eric the .5b » 05 Jun 2019, 13:39

JasonL wrote:
05 Jun 2019, 13:18
Eric the .5b wrote:
04 Jun 2019, 21:57
However, the tone-deaf part Is ignoring the rest of the story and thousands of dead people to go on at length about one misused word, as if that's the only important part.
What does this mean? In plain English to native speakers it means "the author is tone deaf because he dared challenge the use of genocide when he should have been focusing on the suffering."
No, it doesn't. I even explicitly said in a post to Warren that it's perfectly reasonable to include this in a discussion of misuses of the word "genocide", but that such an article would be distinctly different from this one in a number of ways.

Beyond that, noting that a presentation is tone deaf isn't declaring:
OMG how dare you talk about the abuse of the term when there is suffering to talk about

Feel free to try again.
JasonL wrote:
05 Jun 2019, 13:18
Eric the .5b wrote:
05 Jun 2019, 09:01
Right, right, Jason. The real crime's not the murdered women, it's the misuse of a word. I get it.
The mockery here, again in plain English, is I'm mocking you Jason because the real crime IS NOT the misuse of the word, it's the murdered women.
...Yeah? Are you really trying to argue that it isn't?

Because there's plenty of room to criticize the misuse of the word without coming off as an asshat, clueless, or a racist—as I said in my very first "posts [sic]" to Thoreau—but the "real crime" kinda does have to be the literal murders of thousands of people (and what culpability their government has in those deaths), not the overheated rhetoric that pissed you off.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 23803
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Intellectualism: Dark and Webbed

Post by JasonL » 05 Jun 2019, 13:50

There you did it again - with italics so I know you mean it. This is about you saying what the real issue is. Your insistence that it’s okay hypothetically to talk about word use immediately flips here.

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 13334
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Intellectualism: Dark and Webbed

Post by Eric the .5b » 05 Jun 2019, 13:56

JasonL wrote:
05 Jun 2019, 13:50
There you did it again - with italics so I know you mean it. This is about you saying what the real issue is. Your insistence that it’s okay hypothetically to talk about word use immediately flips here.
Wait, so you're really saying that considering the deaths of thousands of women to be a worse thing than your umbrage at the misuse of the word "genocide" is equivalent to saying, "OMG how dare you <blah blah blah>"?
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 23803
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Intellectualism: Dark and Webbed

Post by JasonL » 05 Jun 2019, 14:06

Sort of. I'm saying that your framing "X suffering is a worse thing than the language choice" is entirely unreasonable. You are employing it here as a way of saying a thematic focus on the words is wrong in the face of THE REAL ISSUE, which means:

a) Take any issue with suffering involved
b) People advocating on behalf of the suffering or survivors get to use any rhetorical tactic they like, any word choice, any amount of accusation fair or unfair and it's maybe not great but don't you dare focus on that because
c) THE REAL thing is the suffering

I'm saying the suffering and the legitimacy of claims around that suffering are entirely independent things that can be discussed independently without having the "why don't you care enough about suffering" hammer come down. It's bluntly the Ta-Nehesi Coates playbook. It's exactly the framework.

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 9542
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Intellectualism: Dark and Webbed

Post by nicole » 05 Jun 2019, 14:25

An actual reason Quillette isn't that great:
Just close your eyes and think of England, as the saying goes. The attitude expressed by Beauvoir here is now embedded not only in radical feminism, but in mainstream culture and media. A visit to Wikipedia will tell you that the missionary position is a bad idea for losing your virginity. “You cannot do anything but lay [sic] there and take it.” This echoes Beauvoir herself: “It is he who has the aggressive role and she who submits to his embrace.”
https://quillette.com/2019/06/05/a-mode ... -position/

Really? Wikipedia says that? Well, not exactly:
The missionary position is commonly used the first time a couple has sex. Thomas Stuttaford notes that it may be more comfortable to do so: "The discomfort of early penetrative sex, if there is any, is usually related to tension in the pelvic or thigh muscles and/or anxiety that has prevented the usual vaginal lubrication. Muscles of the pelvic floor are more relaxed if, initially, the missionary position is chosen and a couple of pillows are arranged under the woman's bottom so her hips are tilted upwards." The simplicity of the position makes it well-suited to the inexperienced. The Lovers' Guide states that missionary lends itself well to sex with a new partner as it is "a romantic yet fairly unadventurous sex position" that is "non-threatening and loving" and "lays neither partner open to strangeness, anxiety and unfamiliarity."

On the other hand, Sacha Tarkovsky advises women to not use the missionary position when having sex for the first time, stating, "You are not in control, and it will be more painful and you cannot do anything but lay [sic] there and take it." Tarkovsky recommends positions such as woman on top that allow the woman to control the speed and pressure at which she loses her hymen. However, it may not be necessary to completely forgo missionary the first time; Alphonso Sirtle suggests starting with woman on top until the hymen is torn, and then possibly switching to missionary or whatever other position is preferred.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missionary_position
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"Sliced bagels aren't why trump won; it's why it doesn't matter who wins." -dhex

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 24265
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Intellectualism: Dark and Webbed

Post by Mo » 05 Jun 2019, 14:30

Missionary is great because it’s actually pretty flexible. Guy can sit up lie flat or stand. Woman can have legs wrapped around, straight up, over shoulders, spread wide. Also, it’s pretty unmatched for depth and feel. Don’t @ me.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 24265
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Intellectualism: Dark and Webbed

Post by Mo » 05 Jun 2019, 14:35

JasonL wrote:See though, a) managers within many shops who have never really had a material problem with this stuff are also adopting zero tolerance, why is that; b) the explicit goal of activists is to brand destroy and litigate based on the premise of There Is No Such Thing As Good Faith. There is no gray. There is no obligation to be reasonable in any interpretation ever ever. The lawyers get brought in because these cases are being brought in volume and brand police will actively try at every turn to make "allowed a gray event with nuance to occur" into "GenocideCo!!!!!!!" My argument is precisely that the destruction of good faith spaces falls predominantly at the feet of the perpetually aggrieved. It is how they flex.
Many shops? Name one. I have never heard of any company that I or my acquaintances worked at where HR acts like inquisitors and cases being brought in volume like this wiping out thoughtcrime the way described. If that was the case, the average age of BigCo leadership would drop by a decade or two.

The cases I know of people being removed typically involve people where there were a lot of whispers for a long time, pretty bright line cases and a quiet exit.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 13334
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Intellectualism: Dark and Webbed

Post by Eric the .5b » 05 Jun 2019, 14:39

JasonL wrote:
05 Jun 2019, 14:06
Sort of. I'm saying that your framing "X suffering is a worse thing than the language choice" is entirely unreasonable.
Wow.
JasonL wrote:
05 Jun 2019, 14:06
You are employing it here as a way of saying a thematic focus on the words is wrong in the face of THE REAL ISSUE, which means:
No. I'm saying the words are, in fact, less important than the serious human suffering. That in it itself doesn't mean the words don't matter at all. Given all the prescriptivism/descriptivism arguments we've had over the years, I'm one of the last people here you can convincingly argue doesn't care about the meaning and use of words. That's not a point I'm remotely uncomfortable standing by, and it's one I've said in a few different ways, and I really don't believe you when you say you don't get this.
JasonL wrote:
05 Jun 2019, 14:06
b) People advocating on behalf of the suffering or survivors get to use any rhetorical tactic they like, any word choice, any amount of accusation fair or unfair and it's maybe not great but don't you dare focus on that because
Nope. That's not anything I've argued. I've argued that it's possible (and successfully accomplished in the case of the article) to give a bad, off-putting, and unconvincing presentation of the criticism.

I will say that, in this particular case? You arguments have taken me from suspecting that the misuse of "genocide" might have been justified as a tool for getting attention to the problem (despite the strange, utterly novel political approach of using hyperbole and over-the-top rhetoric) to thinking it almost certainly was justified. Because the people like you, the ones who see this and only care about the deadly trespass upon word meanings that totally never otherwise happens in politics, are helping to make this story visible with your complaints. As a political tactic, exploiting people like you (or, more accurately, visible complainers like the article-writer) for buzz seems sound.

I guess this was your attempt to put up; fair enough. I can't speak to what's wrong with you, whether you're a self-centered asshat, amazingly clueless, or actually a racist. I can't say it really matters to me. In any case, you can still fuck off.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 23803
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Intellectualism: Dark and Webbed

Post by JasonL » 05 Jun 2019, 15:50

The prime asshat move here is to suggest that it’s important at all to compare the suffering to the word use in terms of “which is worse”. It’s a nonsense framing. I can argue about word use and never ever touch on the magnitude of human suffering and that’s says absolutely moral, reasonable and justified. The move is the exact thing you did here. Racism is some obvious implication from wanting to talk about an unreasonable claim.

An analogy maybe some might find more familiar - parents of dead children can be really awful in their rhetoric. They can be entirely unhinged in demands for harsh punishments, law enforcement powers, regulations, gun control etc. They will constantly do this thing where they ask if “what is more important , DEAD CHILDREN or ... literally any kind of argument that their claim is overheated.

This is identical to the TNC reparations argument.

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 17004
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: Intellectualism: Dark and Webbed

Post by lunchstealer » 05 Jun 2019, 17:45

Huh. Forty six days.
"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Neoliberalism. Austerity. Booga booga!!!!" - JasonL

"We can't confirm rumors that Lynndie England is in the running to be Gina Haspel's personal aide." - DAR

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 23940
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Intellectualism: Dark and Webbed

Post by Jennifer » 05 Jun 2019, 17:57

Eric the .5b wrote:
05 Jun 2019, 14:39
I guess this was your attempt to put up; fair enough. I can't speak to what's wrong with you, whether you're a self-centered asshat, amazingly clueless, or actually a racist.
Fourth option -- not defending or excusing Jason, just reminding you -- "having a tendency to ignore the actual issue in lieu of arguing whether le mot juste was used to describe it." Like, "for all the vile things Snowden exposed about the US government, the real issue here is Glenn Greenwald using the phrase 'worst nightmare' to describe how the government would react if ALL that info got out."
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 23803
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Intellectualism: Dark and Webbed

Post by JasonL » 05 Jun 2019, 18:48

Well, no frankly. See, if I want to talk about gun control I don't have to talk about dead children or their parents or anything else. I can talk about it as a concept, about words used in debates about it as a policy, about all kinds of things that actually in no way have to even marginally touch on dead children. To say "dead children is the real issue" is just wrong. And, further, it's shitty to suggest it is. If I want to talk about Greenwald using hyperbole I don't have to talk about good things that came out of Snowden's case. I can talk about abortion without murdered babies. Can talk about race relations without slavery in 2019.

This guy, or me, or anyone really, can make an independent argument about a claim without being corralled into The Real Issue which is always the frame being sought. No, I don't advocate genocide. I don't ignore it. I don't under appreciate it. Same for these women. I don't disregard their suffering at all. I just don't accept that their suffering makes every other possible discussion moot. The greatest suffering is not the greatest truth.

Just as it is apparently difficult for you guys to figure out if I'm a racist or merely a sociopath, I can't figure out if you guys have actually swallowed the entire premise of social justice whole or if you are being strategic.

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 26106
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Intellectualism: Dark and Webbed

Post by Warren » 05 Jun 2019, 19:00

JasonL wrote:
05 Jun 2019, 18:48
I can talk about abortion without murdered babies.
Well maybe you can. But for a lot of people abortion is in fact murdering babies.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 23803
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Intellectualism: Dark and Webbed

Post by JasonL » 05 Jun 2019, 19:07

I get that. The nature of the thing I keep bitching about is the insistence that any current or formerly oppressed people, anyone who is a victim, gets to do this for every conversation, every subject all the time. Everything is the most extreme thing and is oh by the way the Real Issue. Hey you said something there that is entirely out of proportion, a gross misuse of a really dramatic claim that belittles people who actually ... SHUT UP! You want to talk about one word in the face of this?

Well yes. I want to talk about the claim you are making which is entirely absurd and also happens to set the stage for the next part of the conversation.

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 17004
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: Intellectualism: Dark and Webbed

Post by lunchstealer » 05 Jun 2019, 19:33

Warren wrote:
05 Jun 2019, 19:00
JasonL wrote:
05 Jun 2019, 18:48
I can talk about abortion without murdered babies.
Well maybe you can. But for a lot of people abortion is in fact murdering babies.
I once objected to some dumbass saying that gentrification was genocide. I didn't address the underlying point that gentrification can disrupt communities and their network of support systems as neighbors who had watched each others' kids moved to different parts of the city when rent rose too fast. I didn't disagree with that in and of itself. I just felt that genocide was the wrong term.
"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Neoliberalism. Austerity. Booga booga!!!!" - JasonL

"We can't confirm rumors that Lynndie England is in the running to be Gina Haspel's personal aide." - DAR

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests