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!
1. What discourse norms do you tend to follow? Why? Do you think everyone else should follow them, and why?
Most of my discourse norms are not, I think, specific to the pro-SJ side of things? I mean, “on the subject of systemic oppression, listen to those it targets more carefully, as those it benefits are likely to be biased” seems to be SJ-specific or at least far more common among pro-SJ folk, but “don’t insist on ~debating~ people who actually didn’t sign up for a debate at all and don’t want to participate” and “don’t mock children if you’re an adult” are some rules I’d hope people would follow no matter what they believed about the existence of privilege or whatnot.
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?
The propositions “there is systemic inequality based on exploiting certain demographics for the benefit of not-those-demographics” and “that first proposition is a bad thing” (yes, apparently there are people who dispute that part specifically) seem to match reality as I have observed it. I know I can’t just believe things immutably, so there must be something that would convince me that the whole thing is wrong, but I’m having trouble actually imagining it. I guess if, somehow, I was shown that all the inequality I had observed in my life was closer to the total than the average? I’ll admit that’s a really high bar, but I’m having trouble even making up a smaller piece of evidence that would actually convince me it was all wrong. It’s not really one belief, after all, so much as a big web of connected beliefs.
3. Explain Gamergate.
… Okay, confession time. I read “the Zoe post” that started it all. Yet I have absolutely no idea what the connection is between that and the “ethics in game journalism”, “make companies stop pandering to SJW”, “video game censorship is basically the devil”, “beware dyed hair” movement Gamergate is now. I mean, the original post explicitly says he thinks Zoe didn’t trade sex for reviews of Depression Quest, and names her SJ-ness as a positive quality. And censorship didn’t even come up. … I hope the dyed hair thing is just an in-joke. I don’t get the whole thing, really, but I know it’s all very shouty and vitriolic, so I just stay the hell away.