Tags
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.
Thing of Things 
In terms of ITT strategy, if this is a fake, it’s brilliant. Keeping the answers short is completely plausible, and minimizes chances to get something wrong.
I’m stumped – it strikes me as very plausible, but there’s not enough data for me to get comfortable with a prediction.
LikeLike
Well, since I’m stumped, maybe it’s not brilliant (if fake). Now I’m not even confident about that.
LikeLike
I mean, the knowledge that a substantial number of responses are thoughtful fakes makes it impossible for me to have any certainty at all, so I think “we are absolutely convinced” is too high a bar. I’m voting based on my intuitive reaction even though I know it may not be closely related to reality.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is the most plausible one so far. I can’t see anything wrong with this one at all.
If I *had* to quibble, it would be with “don’t mock children if you’re an adult”; I can’t see the train of thought that led this person to put that in their answer, but that’s so minor I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt.
LikeLike
I’ve seen some discourse on Tumblr about how adults on Tumblr have some responsibility to not be assholes to the kids/teens on there and perhaps not be too harsh on them when they screw up.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Though you don’t always know what age somebody is online.
LikeLike
Yeah, that’s a pretty common viewpoint in the SJ spaces that tend to intersect with rationalist Tumblr. I’m fairly confident that this is someone pro-SJ, but if it’s not then it certainly passes the ITT.
LikeLike
“but that’s so minor I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt”
Pun intended, I assume. 🙂
LikeLike
Unfortunately, no. 😛
LikeLike
At the end, will you reveal which pro/anti answers belong to the same person? Because I can’t wait to read this one’s anti answers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m voting sincere.
LikeLike
Feels sincere.
My answers so far:
1: Anti – certain
2: Pro – certain
3: Pro – unsure
4: Pro – unsure
LikeLike
Pro-SJ. The specific belief in SJ-specific rules which outsiders generally wouldn’t notice in answer #1 is the biggest personal tip-off, combined with the statement that the author is unsure of their broader use. The third answer is basically “The stuff I’ve heard about the other side sounds stupid, but I have stayed away and aren’t going to pretend to really know what’s going on” is, moreover, a statement of reasoned ignorance about a topic the author doesn’t find interesting, which suggests honesty in a response.
LikeLike
Seems pretty sincere. I’m biased towards assuming that everyone is lying, but there’s nothing that seems dodgy about this one.
LikeLike
If this is a fake, it’s a really clever one.
LikeLike
I think it’s pro-SJ; it seems sincere and not the sort of thing I’d expect somebody to fake.
LikeLike
Given the emphasis of the author on the fact that some people think oppression is great, I wonder whether they’ll choose to represent that position for the anti-SJ ITT.
LikeLike
Seems straightforward Pro-SJ because of discourse and rules than anti-SJ writing (who would have you believe SJs were all about their caricature of ‘safe spaces’ all the time). The whole “web of interconnected beliefs” thing is spot-on – while I am willing to give 3 the benefit of the doubt because I too want strict rules and criterion, 1 and 2 were so willing to change their minds without sufficient evidence and this response most accurately captures what it means to be SJ imo. I see 3 as someone who knows SJ people and politics very well – and I think most trans women end up knowing SJ people uncomfortably well because identity and queerness. However, minor language quibbles lead me to vote anti-SJ.
Anyways, if this is a fake, hats off, you might be able to convince me that I’m wrong about social justice (pro-SJ here). I believe this post conveys a sense of comfort with the ideology of social justice by comparison to the amount the likely anti-SJs wrote. This is why I believe it is pro-SJ.
Answers so far:
1. Anti
2. Anti
3. Anti (Unsure about anti or pro- but pretty certain actually autistic and actually trans mtf – at least the first one)
4. Pro
LikeLike
Extremely rambly, and the least convincing argumentation so far, IMHO. If this is genuine, it is in serious need of steelmanning. Voted fake, but it could also just be very quickly written.
LikeLike
I’m going with sincere.
LikeLike
With no intent offended to other writers, I’m generally finding that I’m more likely to vote “pro” if the article is written with a certain amount of verve, as this one is. I think someone asked to describe their beliefs will naturally do so in an engaging, fairly witty way, while someone asked to fake it will be too busy trying to tick the right boxes to do so – and won’t have genuinely spent time feeling defensive of their beliefs in such a way that generates witty retorts.
LikeLike
This reads like somebody who is “pro-SJ” in the very loosest sense of the term – which raises the question “what is SJ”? This person strikes me as being right on the edge between “pro-SJ” and “too neutral for it to be a fair ITT”.
LikeLike
Pro
LikeLike
Pingback: SJ and Anti-SJ ITT: The Results! | Thing of Things