Confused about what an Intellectual Turing Test is? Click here! Please read, then vote at the end of the post. Feel free to speculate in the comment section about this person’s identity!
NOTE: People have speculated that both of the previous posts were written by Scott Alexander. Sadly, Scott is not participating in the Intellectual Turing Test, and thus no posts are written by him.
1. What discourse norms do you tend to follow? Why? Do you think everyone else should follow them, and why?
I err on the side of not commenting on issues I don’t think I could make a good contribution to, and when I make a serious contribution, as opposed to venting or telling jokes, I try to do it in a calm and charitable manner. Both of these things have to do with my non-confrontational personality, and do not necessarily generalize to everyone. I’m not even sure how productive the task of trying to come up with a fully general set of abstract “norms” for “discourse” is. It really depends on whether you think you or some interlocutor will change their minds during the course of discussion, whether you think your audience will, how sensitive your interlocutors and audience are, how sensitive you want to portray yourself as being, etc.
2. What is the true reason, deep down, that you believe what you believe? What piece of evidence, test, or line of reasoning would convince you that you’re wrong about your ideology?
I believe that there is a recurring pattern, which plays out in a lot of different ways, where some group of people has power over another and social structures are set up to advantage the powerful and disadvantage the less powerful, and I believe that a society . I believe this because the idea of oppressive power structures seems like the best way to model both things I’ve observed in my own life as an autistic trans woman and things I’ve heard of from others who experience other forms of oppression, as well as statistical disparities in life outcomes between different groups of people. If someone proposes a better model which is radically different to the point where someone following it would no longer be grouped into the category of “social justice”, and it is shown that it more parsimoniously explains what I’ve heard and seen, I’ll believe it. Conversely, if a large body of strong statistical evidence were presented that these patterns do not exist, along with a plausible reason why they would appear to exist in spite of this, I would definitely reconsider my position. Finally, if someone found some way of convincing me that explicitly striving for a more just society, with respect to various systems of oppression, is counterproductive, naturally I would stop advocating for social justice ideas.
3. Explain Gamergate.
Okay, without looking anything up, Eron Gjoni makes a post about his ex-girlfriend Zoe Quinn who cheated on him and did to him what some people have recognized as abuse, though he didn’t call it abuse in the post. That’s about to become irrelevant really fast. So after gathering dust for a bit, the post gets posted to 4chan or something and people start harassing Quinn, hanging onto one kind of misogynist line in the “Zoepost” where, when he finds out she slept with five other men, references the fast food chain “five guys burgers and fries”. They also latch on to the fact that she slept with a gaming journalist once, which, while it probably didn’t influence the reviews of her games much, was viewed as an example of corruption in the games journalism industry. So Gaming Youtuber Anita Sarkeesian also becomes a target of harassment because she, uhh, makes videos slowly?, a lot of people support the newly-christened #gamergate movement because they have grievences about ethics in gaming journalism, completely forgetting Gjoni and Quinn. A lot of female game people become targets, feminists take notice and defend them, now people who don’t even care that much about game reviews are supporting #gamergate because they oppose the feminist backlash against it, and feminists have a backlash against that, and the whole thing escalates until it gets taken as emblematic of online harrassment in general and Quinn and Sarkeesian speak before the UN about it.