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!
By popular demand, polls now include an option to indicate your pro-SJ or anti-SJ alignment. Those who do not consider themselves pro-SJ or anti-SJ should either vote with the one they’re closest to or alternate. (Sorry, guys, I’ve dealt with the LW survey results, I know you abuse the right to be special snowflakes.)
1. What discourse norms do you tend to follow? Why? Do you think everyone else should follow them, and why?
The discourse norms I aim to follow balance several different forms of respect – respect for other people as individuals, respect for other opinions, respect for underprivileged groups, and respect for the truth. All of these are important, and none of them override the others in every circumstance.
Respect for other people as individuals means treating them with courtesy, regardless of disagreements. This is important for maintaining a polite, friendly and welcoming atmosphere. Spaces which lack this norm tend to become dominated by the loudest, most aggressive voices and drive people away. However, when this norm is raised above all others, it can be used to silence those experiencing genuine anger and injustice – women and minorities are often dismissed for being insufficiently polite.
Respect for other opinions is often referred to as freedom of speech. It means not silencing people simply because they hold an opinion you disagree with. This norm is important for maintaining an open dialogue and openness to criticism. Spaces which fail to follow this norm tend to become stifled by consensus and group-think. However, not all opinions need be permitted in all spaces. Subaltern groups – who are constantly subject to mainstream opinions which question their value or existence – should be able to create spaces where they do not have to be exposed to opinions they find distressing, and use those spaces to rest, retreat, and develop strategies and ideas without constantly refighting the same battles. In addition, some opinions are sufficiently abhorrent that they should be denied legitimacy. Institutions such as universities and media outlets should not be obligated to provide a platform for racist, homophobic, misogynist or transphobic views, and the people that support those institutions (students and customers) should be able to protest and boycott them.
Respect for the truth means arguing in good faith, avoiding lies, and supporting positions with evidence. This is important because misinformation and deliberate lies undermine the trust necessary for effective communication, and unwillingness to ground positions in evidence makes rational argument or decision making impossible. However, when this norm is overvalued and certain kinds of evidence privileged over others, it can be used to silence opponents while retaining the appearance of objectivity. For example, dismissing the lived experiences of subaltern groups while demanding excessive or inappropriate standards of empirical evidence for opposing arguments.
Respect for underprivileged groups means recognising that some groups are subject to systematic discrimination and silencing. For example, men tend to talk more than women but believe women are dominating the conversation when they have equal time. Consequently, male feminists have an obligation to support women when they speak and avoid monopolising the conversation – an obligation which does not need to be reciprocated. People from privileged groups should yield the floor to those less privileged where possible. When speaking on a specific topic – trans rights for instance, or racism – those directly effected should be given priority. When this norm is not followed, underprivileged or minority groups tend to be suppressed by the prioritisation of other speech norms – demands for politeness, balance, free speech or particular forms of evidence can all be used to erase their perspective.
Because all of these norms are important and they sometimes conflict with one another, it is necessary to use good judgement to understand what to say in a given situation. The appropriate balance between these norms varies depending on the nature of the space they are being applied to and the nature of the entity which enforces them. I will briefly lay out some possible spheres and what I consider the appropriate norms within them.
State Sphere: The state supplies the overarching rules for debate in society because it holds a monopoly on force and can silence speech through legislation and active censorship. As a consequence, the state should prioritise respect for a diversity of opinions. However, it is appropriate to use the power of the state to silence certain kinds of speech – slander (which falls under respect for the truth), incitement to violence, and harassment or abuse.
Public Sphere: The public sphere is where members of a society engage in political and social discussions about the nature and future of their shared world. In this arena it is important to balance all norms as evenly as possible so as to maximise the ability of every person to participate. This sphere is also the least subject to any form of control, so it is most incumbent on those who speak to consider whether their speech conforms to the principles.
Institutional Sphere: This is the domain of corporate (not necessarily private) entities such as schools and universities, government bureaucracies, and actual corporations. These institutions can have more restrictive rules governing allowable speech, and their first priority is usually the harmonious cooperation of their students or employees, and public relations. This means respect for individuals takes priority over respect for differing opinions. However, it is important that these organisations be aware of power dynamics which can be harmful to women or minorities within their organisation, so heightened respect for subaltern groups is appropriate.
Social Sphere: This is the space of non-political social interaction. In the social sphere, which involves frequent interaction with strangers, respect for others as individuals is paramount. However, attention must be paid to intentional and unintentional microaggressions which are often inflicted on members of subaltern groups in the process of routine social interaction – for example misgendering transgender people, asking women to smile, or asking visible minorities where they are from.
Counterpublic: Counterpublics are places for subaltern groups gather, retreat and organise. They are often referred to as safe spaces. In a counterpublic, the overriding priority should be the subaltern group which the space serves. Anger and generalisations about the dominant group are more acceptable here than elsewhere, and it is unnecessary to give a fair hearing to opinions which undermine the basic assumptions of the safe space. Counterpublics are necessary, but it is important not to let free expressions of anger degenerate into toxicity and domination by a clique.
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 underlying basis of my ideology is the recognition of entrenched, unjust power structures and the desire to dismantle them. The interlinked systems of race, class, gender, heteronormativity and ableism create hierarchies everywhere we turn and create a society characterised by domination and violence. It is our duty to dismantle these systems, to liberate ourselves and our fellow human beings (and ultimately animals as well).
Since the enlightenment progress has been made in recognising and dismantling these power structures and achieving formal legal equality, but they are too entrenched to be eliminated simply getting rid of explicitly discriminatory laws and hoping for the best. The myth of the level playing field only serves to disguise the reality of privilege. Hierarchies of domination and exploitation permeate our culture, our language and our social organisation. In order to dismantle them we must be critical of the state, but also of the way we speak, the media we consume, and the way we conduct ourselves. This, to me, is the essence of ‘social justice’.
If I could be convinced that these systematic injustices didn’t exist, or that they were changing on their own without the need for active criticism, or that attempts to change them were doing more harm than good, I would stop fighting for social justice.
3. Explain Gamergate.
Gamergate is a reactionary social movement opposed to the increasing visibility of subaltern groups in geek culture. Ostensibly focused on collusion between game developers and journalists, the rhetoric and targets of the movement betray it’s true nature.
Although the term was coined by Adam Baldwin to refer to the ‘Quinnspiracy’ surrounding Zoe Quinn and her alleged trading of sexual favours for favourable reviews, the movement really began in the opposition to Anita Sarkeesian’s ‘Tropes Against Women’ kickstarter., which aimed to apply cultural criticism to videogames in the same way it has been applied to other forms of media. Many of the same people who opposed Sarkeesian are at the center of Gamergate, and the movement finds it almost impossible not to target her.
There are three general groups within Gamergate as it exists now: Unreflective reactionaries and the alt-right. Unreflective reactionaries are the largest group. Mostly white men, they sense that their identity as gamers is somehow threatened but they do not have a detailed ideology to explain why. They sense that they are being scolded and looked down on by feminist critics and game journalists and are uncomfortable that games in styles they dislike (artsy indies, twine games and walking simulators for example) are being praised by those critics while games they do like are criticised for thing that seem unimportant or illusionary. In order to rationalise this discomfort they frame their distaste as a principled ethical opposition to collusion between games developers and games journalists, but when pressed or within the gamergate bubble on reddit or 8chan they reveal that the real target of their ire is feminism – this is also apparent in their choice of targets (Zoey Quin, Randi Harper, Brianna Wu, Anita Sarkeesian and Leigh Alexander). They are not necessarily malicious or particularly right-wing and they might identify as left leaning or even feminist (although their favourite feminist is usually Christina Hoff Summers)
The second group, the alt-right, are only interested in games and gaming incidentally. Their aim is to use Gamergaters as footsoldiers in a culture war. They are fond of elaborate theories linking games developers and critics to the Frankfurt School and the conspiracy of international Jewry to undermine western civilisation. Their leaders include Milo Yiannopoulis and Weev (Andrew Auernheimer) and they like to hang around /pol on 4chan.
flockoflambs said:
This is the first entry that I really felt like it was trying to educate me, and not just restating things everyone knows. Definite pro for that.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Elzh said:
…this is extremely well articulated and appears to be part of a larger ethical/moral system. Well done if it is an anti-SJ, and if it is pro-SJ the author should be commended for nuance.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Anon. said:
This one presented some outrageous views (“respect for truth” apparently means preferring anecdotes over empirical evidence, “respect for other opinions” means respect only for opinions the author likes), but in an extremely dull and academic tone. If it was bombastic I would’ve dismissed it as an imitation of tumblr-SJ, but the length and tone made it convincing. Who would bother writing 1.6k words just to fool some people on an internet test? Also “subaltern”, no antis would think to use that.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Fisher said:
Obvious, consistent political viewpoint.
Voting sincere
LikeLiked by 1 person
Fisher said:
Also: Bonus SJ-points for using the full view of the concept of “safe spaces:” They are not (or at least were not) simply places where people wouldn’t hear things they didn’t like. they were also places where particular groups could express anger at their oppressors without being tone-policed or shamed for their anger.
LikeLike
jossedley said:
Voting pro – this one is very good and consistent. I find it almost unreadable as result of its detached semi-academic tone, but it’s addressing a very wide range of information and it does so consistently.
I didn’t learn anything and I wasn’t convinced of anything, but Ozy’s mandate wasn’t to persuade, only to describe (either honestly in a credible imitation of honesty).
I don’t spot any inconsistencies in style, and as far as I can tell, the jargon is used appropriately. I think it’s either the real thing or its a masterful ASJ submission.
(Minus a couple points if it’s a late submission, but either way, nice job and thanks for putting in this much time, mystery author.)
LikeLike
Lawrence D'Anna said:
I think this one is real. It feels less like something out of a cringe compilation and more like someone’s real opinion that they’re trying to express precisely and politely. It is pluralistic and liberal in ways I throughly approve of. It doesn’t act like policy questions are one sided. It acknowledges multiple priorities and values that sometimes conflict. It’s portrait of gamergate isn’t exactly flattering but it’s not orcish or psychologically implausible.
Actually I don’t know. I really like this author, and maybe that’s why I think it’s real. Maybe it’s an anti-SJ person trying to paint SJ as sympathetically as possible while still agreeing with its core claims.
LikeLiked by 2 people
jossedley said:
As Anon says, if its an ASJ who both wrote this much and is familiar with subaltern counterpublics, they deserve a pro vote.
LikeLike
jdbreck said:
This is the real deal. The style is right, the ideas are right, the slightly pedantic tone at points is right, the painstaking attention to detail is right. If this is a fake I would be very shocked.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Machine Interface said:
I’m a bit disappointed that of the answers to question 2 so far, none explain or even adress the underlying moral assumption behind the ideological system and worldview; instead they assume the moral assumptions are universal and proceed to describe a system and worldview that logically flow from those.
LikeLiked by 2 people
tcheasdfjkl said:
I’m more disappointed that nobody has tried to explain why they believe these inequalities/systems exist and are significant, other than “my life experience” with no examples.
LikeLiked by 2 people
jossedley said:
I think most of the writers understood (or chose to interpret) #2 to mean why the writer believes the factual underpinnings that cause her to be SJ or ASJ.
You’re right that “what evidence would cause you to change your underlying moral philosophy” is interesting, but IMHO it would take a lot longer than the exercise merits.
If someone says she’s SJ because she believes that increasing equality of power would serve utilitarian goals and that she would change her mind if she saw evidence that it would be counter-utilitarian, that’s OK as far as it goes, but going a level deeper and saying “what evidence would cause you not to be a utilitarian” is a philosophical challenge. God appearing and explaining that He created the universe with Natural Laws? Socrates rising from the dead and taking our SJ writer through an extended metaphor at the end of which she agrees that because one wouldn’t put a saddle on a pig or teach rhetoric to a horse, it’s clear that the Platonic Good is both knowable and desirable?
IMHO, most people take their basic moral framework as a given and would be surprised by what it would take to change it, rather than being able to predict it.
LikeLike
sniffnoy said:
What I notice is that several of the answers to #2 so far are of the form “this is what it would take to convince me that I have the value of some variable wrong”. But if SJ is wrong, it’s not because they have the value of some variable wrong, it’s because their whole conceptual framework is wrong — because they’re speaking nonsense, not straight falsehoods; their statements’ presuppositions are false. If you believe in, say, the SJ notion of an “oppressed class”, as they use the term, of course you are going to conclude that black people are oppressed and white people are not. The question isn’t “For each of these two groups, are they oppressed or not?”; the question is, “Does the notion of ‘oppressed class’ make sense, or does it rely on false assumptions?” (“Oppressed class” used purely as an example here, to be clear.)
LikeLiked by 2 people
tcheasdfjkl said:
Why? SJ can totally be wrong on the grounds that the empirical claims that underpin it are wrong. Like, you could examine the evidence that black people were oppressed in the past but aren’t anymore, or that women are oppressed in some parts of the world and not others. You can totally operationalize terms like “oppressed” to make them straightforwardly correspond to empirical realities, and then observe whether those things are true or not.
I’m not sure what it would mean for the notion of “oppressed class” to make no sense. Presumably there is some definition that makes sense? Do you just mean that most people use definitions that don’t make sense?
LikeLiked by 5 people
tcheasdfjkl said:
Or as in Maxim’s example below, MRAs are generally not considered to be part of SJ, yet their disagreement with SJ is precisely that SJ allegedly misdiagnosed who is oppressed.
LikeLike
tcheasdfjkl said:
I accidentally some words: “you could examine the evidence and conclude that…”
LikeLike
jossedley said:
I think once you identify a moral framework, you can talk about evidence.
If someone supports SJ because they think its net utilitarian or because they think inequality is a natural moral wrong or because they think it will increase their own personal utility over the course of their life, then they would presumably change their mind about the desirability of SJ if evidence convinced them that SJ was counter-utilitarian or caused other moral wrongs or was personally harmful.
Those pretty much are the conversion stories – somebody gradually notices that their SJ community is itself problematic or leads to actions they consider immoral, or that it just makes them miserable.
LikeLike
tcheasdfjkl said:
This actually struck me as a really good fake. Possibly when I have more time I’ll go back and try to articulate why.
But whether it’s real or fake, great job.
LikeLike
Susebron said:
I think that the specific ideology proposed here is basically exactly what one thinks when one thinks SJ, which seems to me to be somewhat unlikely for a particular person to actually espouse in its entirety (especially here). Also, it seemed somewhat to be overdoing it with the shibboleths. I wouldn’t expect an unsophisticated fake to use “subaltern”, which makes it useful for a sophisticated fake, but I don’t think that “subaltern” is a term that is likely to be used to the degree used here. Similarly with “counterpublics” – it sounds like an academic term, but I’ve never actually heard of it before, and I expect that it’s not really present in SJ discourse and would be unlikely to make it into a person’s actual summary of their beliefs.
I voted pro-SJ simply because I think this passes the ITT in the sense that it correctly represents pro-SJ ideology, and I’m not entirely confident that this is fake, but I would not be surprised if it were. If this is an anti-SJ person, it’s an anti-SJ person who is very willing to engage with SJ on an academic and informal level, which speaks well of them.
LikeLike
Maxim Kovalev said:
So, “we must respect the freedom of speech, except when people are saying things I disagree with?”
Eh….
These kinda feel like straw men. Overall it’s really well-written, but I have the impression that this either very hipstery SJ or value-aligned anti-SJ, who’s mostly describing their views, but occasionally adding patches to make it look more like mainstream SJ. I’m voting anti.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Protagoras said:
What is a “value-aligned anti-SJ?” This is certainly not the first time in the course of going through these that I’ve wondered what people’s criteria were for what counts as an SJ anyway (there are constant indications that people’s standards do not agree with mine, or with one another’s), but that expression really jumped out at me. Perhaps because I wonder if you’d put me in that category (I usually put myself with the SJ crowd, but I do disagree strongly with some views prominently associated with SJ).
LikeLike
Lawrence D'Anna said:
Does it mean “someone who’s terminal values are utilitarian-universalist, and opposes SJ on factual and instrumental grounds”?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Maxim Kovalev said:
I know a lot of people who in general support the stated goals of SJ movement, but strongly disagree with empirical claims about the world that are generally accepted in SJ circles, and think that the movement as whole is doing so much harm and is so irreparably broken that it makes more sense to oppose it as whole than trying to change it from within. I think a lot of MRAs are in this category – they might value gender equality, but think that feminism exaggerates women’s issues while ignoring men’s issues, and thus men are the more systematically oppressed gender in the First World, or think that feminism is the direct cause of most men’s issues.
As for what counts as SJ and anti-SJ, I guess I’ll just respect people’s self-identification here. A lot of it is in fact identity politics anyway, so “what team the person is rooting for” seems like a fairly meaningful metric here.
LikeLiked by 3 people
philosoraptorjeff said:
Maxim, as one of the people you’re describing, I think that’s an excellent summary. (And that is more or less what I got out of your phrase “value-aligned anti-SJ” – i.e. people who agree with its ostensible values and stated “on paper” goals, but disagree sufficiently strongly with other aspects of the movement to be on the anti-SJ side.)
LikeLike
philosoraptorjeff said:
Er, I should clarify that I don’t identify as an MRA, in fact if I absolutely had to choose one I prefer feminists, but I do think there’s too many problems with feminism as it currently stands for it to be worth trying to change from within.
LikeLike
rlms said:
This is the only one so far that I am confident is real. The tone and language are spot on (as far as I can tell) and the content seems pretty nuanced and accurate. If the author is anti, they have a very good understanding of SJ ideology (and I imagine they aren’t particularly anti-SJ).
LikeLike
Jack V said:
I was really on the fence about this. It’s either a good fake, or a well-written article from someone starting from a somewhat different place than me and I couldn’t tell which.
LikeLike
Katelyn Ailuros said:
>There are three general groups within Gamergate as it exists now: Unreflective reactionaries and the alt-right.
… What’s the other one?
LikeLiked by 1 person
flockoflambs said:
Is it silly that this blatant typo added to its verisimilitude for me?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Protagoras said:
Upon reflection, it worries me. It could have happened due to cutting and pasting from some source, and deleting one of the types for some reason but forgetting to change the count at the start. I hope no participants did cut and paste (as that would certainly defeat the purpose of the test), but my confidence that everyone has a sufficient sense of fair play, even for a meaningless contest, is not unlimited.
OTOH, if it is really a pro-SJ person, it could be self-plagiarism (of something they’d written before for some other purpose). I wouldn’t really regard that as cheating, and of course if that’s what happened you’re right to judge it more credible for that reason.
LikeLike
Dank said:
Pro – and the one I’m most confident of so far. 85%
LikeLike
Subbak said:
I am somewhat reassured at the ratio of people declaring to be pro-SJ in the poll. That’s certainly more than the comments would let you believe.
LikeLiked by 2 people
argleblarglebarglebah said:
A priori this shouldn’t be a surprise: Ozy is themselves pro-SJ, which means that this is an SJ space, which means it attracts primarily SJ people.
LikeLike
philosoraptorjeff said:
By far the one I’m most confident so far in saying is pro-SJ. It’s more nuanced and fair-minded than I’m used to seeing from those quarters, but not in ways which would disqualify it; the person comes across as an unusually thoughtful but nevertheless 100% sincere proponent of SJ in more or less its present form.
LikeLike
challquist said:
I voted “anti”. “Subaltern counterpublics” does not feel like jargon I would expect a reader of this blog to use, at least without bothering to explain it. Feels like someone who was forced to learn about subaltern counterpublics as part of a distribution requirement in college, and was deeply traumatized by the experience.
LikeLiked by 2 people
tcheasdfjkl said:
Yes this! Those are academic-SJ terms, not Internet-SJ terms. To be fair we may well have some academic SJ people here.
LikeLike
jossedley said:
This post is deeply academic. It’s dispassionate, it has pretty comprehensive knowledge within its scope, it assumes familiarity with specialized jargon, and it’s not particularly dynamic or fun. (Sorry, author – it’s good at being what it is, though!).
It could be written by an ASJ who has taken a lot of SJ oriented academic courses, or who did a really good job of synthesizing existing SJ academic writing, but I’d say the odds are that someone who has bother to become this familiar with SJ and can write this many words on it is herself SJ.
If not, then IMHO the author still deserves to pass the test. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
philosoraptorjeff said:
The person *does* explain what a “counterpublic” is, and what they mean by “subaltern” is easy enough to pick up from context.
LikeLiked by 1 person
dantobias (@dantobias) said:
This person really likes the word “subaltern”; I had to look it up.
I decided this one was probably sincere; it seems to be making a serious attempt to present a SJ position.
At first I found it a bit odd that they listed “individualism” as a value, since many SJ types have a strong dislike for anything individualist, which they associate with right-wing positions, but this just seems to indicate that this person has more familiarity with the rationalist side of things (as is expected for people familiar enough with this blog to participate), and thus needs to show consideration for this and for the free-speech value; it’s still notable that they then proceeded to advocate exceptions to these (and for “truth”) big enough to drive a social-justice truck through, while giving respect for the underprivileged (alone of the four values listed) absolutely no exceptions.
Then their GamerGate description proceeds to be very uncharitable, saying “There are three general groups within Gamergate as it exists now: Unreflective reactionaries and the alt-right.” (That seems like two to me.) Both are treated unfavorably, leaving no room for the possibility of supporters who have valid points of any sort (even if they may be tarred by association with more unsavory types also on the “same side”). I don’t know what twine games and walking simulators are.
LikeLike
user819416 said:
Twine is a program for making text based story games, and walking simulators is a name for a group of recent indie games that are mainly about walking around and looking at things. I’ve never actually heard of anyone bashing twine games, but walking simulators do tend to catch flack.
LikeLike
Lambert said:
Did anyone else imagine a safe space full of army officers?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lawrence D'Anna said:
“Then their GamerGate description proceeds to be very uncharitable”.
I dunno man, if you get much more charitable than that about gamergate are you still SJ at all? Is “they sense that they are being scolded and looked down on by feminist critics”, “real target of their ire is feminism” really that off base?
I’m not like, a gamergate activist or anything, but If you ask me what team I’m rooting for, it’s pro gamergate, not anti, and I will own large parts of her description:
* sense of being scolded and looked down on by feminists, real target of ire is feminism: yes
* “ethics in game journalism” is a silly rationalization: yes. The real emotional valence of it is “we want to feel like games journalists actually like and respect games and people who play games, and all of a sudden they’re acting like Tipper Gore and Bill O’Reilly instead, under the flag of feminism”
* reactionary: yes. If what Anita Sarkesian is selling is progress then fuck progress.
* “might identify as left leaning or even feminist (although their favourite feminist is usually Christina Hoff Summers):” yup. Equality is great. All my anti-left rage is narcissism of small differences stuff. The real right look like crazy aliens to me.
If they were a little more charitable than “unreflective reactionaries” would be “reactionaries that actually have a point”, and if you think that, you’re at least neutral on the SJ anti-SJ axis.
I think maybe the paragraph on the alt right is less charitable. Milo is first and foremost a troll. “elaborate theories”…”international Jewry” is a bit much, though I have occasionally met such people.
LikeLiked by 1 person
anonymous said:
If you want people to respect you for who are, why do you behave disrespectfully to others?
LikeLike
Walter said:
I went Pro for this one, but I’m less certain than most here. There are a few bullets being bitten that folks interested in social justice usually elide. There’s the “three types” typo… Gah, now I’m almost talking myself out of it. Pro, final answer, but not very certain.
1: ASJ, certain
2: SJ, certain
3: SJ, unsure
4: SJ, unsure
5: ASJ, unsure
6: ASJ certain
7: SJ, certain
8: SJ, unsure
LikeLike
memeticengineer said:
Oddities:
(1)It’s strange that this uses “subtlern” and “counterpublic” which are pretty deep academic-SJ jargon but not more commonly known jargon as seen on Tumblr or the net at large. I would have expected the typical SJ person to say “marginalized” or “oppressed” instead of “subaltern”. “kyriarchy” is a term that makes sense in either context as are “lived experience”, “safe space” and for that matter “space”. I would expect this style to also refer to people as “bodies” at least once (e.g. “enacting violence on black bodies”).
(2) The views expressed in section 1 are stated in a way that is overtly measured and polite. But the contents occasionally seem like strawmen of SJ positions (free speech but some opinions must be denied legitimacy, be polite and not loud but doesn’t apply to oppressed groups, respect for truth but trust anecdotes and don’t expect empirical evidence, etc).
(3) This person knows waaaayyyyy too much about Gamergate.
I don’t know what to make of this. It could be:
– Actually sincerely academic SJ person (yet somehow moderate enough to acknowledge truth and free speech as values at all, rather than just tools of the patriarchy).
– Elaborate fake trying to present as a less stereotypical flavor of SJ since the obvious path to fakery would seem “too obvious”.
I voted “anti” but I’m not at all certain.
LikeLiked by 2 people
philosoraptorjeff said:
I disagree with you on (3); the person is very knowledgeable about *the standard SJ talking points* on Gamergate. That’s by no means the same thing as being knowledgeable about Gamergate overall.
(When I described this answer as unusually nuanced and thoughtful above, I wasn’t finished reading the answer to question 3; while that wouldn’t have changed my poll answer – I still think this person is sincere – it would have changed other aspects of how I described them.)
LikeLike
memeticengineer said:
They know enough that either they are actually a Gamergater themselves, or they have been actively following anti-GG conversations. Too many little details for it to just be SJ talking point background knowledge.
LikeLike
Sans said:
I voted pro-SJ mainly because I’ve never heard a Gamergater make any reference to Weev. An anti-SJ would have probably named someone like Ralph as an example of alt-right, whereas a pro-SJ may make the mistake assuming that people they don’t like are in cahoots (or I’m wrong and there’s a Weev/Gamergate connection I don’t know about).
Additionally, I think that an anti-SJ on writing “they sense that their identity as gamers is somehow threatened but they do not have a detailed ideology to explain why” would feel that threatening gamers’ identities would need to be justified for this to not make Gamergate sympathetic. This person, however, breezes through, taking for granted that threatening white males’ identities will be accepted as a good thing.
I also doubt an anti-SJ could have described”the way we speak, the media we consume, and the way we conduct ourselves” as “the essence of social justice” without completely blowing it.
LikeLike
argleblarglebarglebah said:
This is definitely SJ, albeit an academic SJ and not really an internet SJ.
Other people have mentioned use of academic SJ jargon: since it’s not possible to pick up terms like “subaltern” from dialogue with internet SJs, whoever wrote this must either be an academic SJ or very well educated about academic SJ.
More points in favor: the first answer is very long, as is typical of academic writing, and the style is pretty stiff, though not quite as dense as an academic writing for academics would ordinarily write.
(Actually, I know of at least one academic-leaning SJ atheist blogger, and if they read Ozy’s blog I suspect this might be them. Considerably less confident about that guess than my overall guess, however.)
LikeLiked by 2 people
Autolykos said:
Well-researched, balanced, and no obvious missteps. On the off chance that this is a fake, it deserves a pass for that alone.
(Now my answers are showing a slight pro-bias… I guess I would have been more critical of the first if this one and #3 had been earlier).
Also good to see that the answers are now split between pro- and anti-. Now the only thing missing is an “unaligned” option 😛
I don’t quite feel comfortable putting myself in either camp. Picked “anti” for now – since I’m not for SJ, I must obviously be against it.
(Yes, I know I’m an ungrateful bastard…)
LikeLike
Lambert said:
Well it cancels out because I’m also unaligned and said I was pro.
LikeLike
Murphy said:
What the hell is with the “and I’m” section in the poll? I don’t consider myself particularly pro or anti. I don’t really feel comfortable ticking any of those boxes though I’m pretty sure the author is pro-sj
LikeLike
Protagoras said:
As Ozy explained, everybody thinks they’re a special snowflake. And most of them aren’t, so you generally get better data if you force them to make a choice than if you give them an “other” option. Which is unfortunate for the genuinely special snowflakes, of course, but they are rare enough that their absence or misleading answers from them won’t hurt the data much.
LikeLike
Murphy said:
You’re either with us or against us! This is war after all! There is no neutral territory! only those who’ve sided with us and the enemy!
So I guess the next poll will require I declare myself either a republican or a democrat.
LikeLike
ozymandias said:
As I pointed out clearly in the post, people can alternate between identifying themselves as pro-SJ and anti-SJ if they really have a problem rounding themselves to one or the other.
LikeLike
Autolykos said:
I’m not entirely sure how well a 2AFC paradigm is suited to complex ideas, there may just genuinely be a large part of people who don’t care enough to pick a side and mostly wish for the war to be over.
I don’t even care much about the result, as long as it isn’t a total victory for either side.
It’s basically an extension of my generic political stance as non-utopian anarchist. I support whatever is most effective at preventing the dominant factions from consolidating their power. Once things stop being in motion, they start dying.
LikeLike
MugaSofer said:
I’m surprised the new poll doesn’t include an “I’m neutral and this is…” option, given how many people said that was how they identified when this was first announced.
LikeLike
Brock said:
It just dawned on me that, so far, I haven’t seen the word “intersectionality” in any of the responses.
Has that term gone out of fashion to the point where not even the fake responses will use it?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Autolykos said:
At least one of the posters demonstrated good understanding of the concept, though. But I don’t think they used the word.
LikeLike
tcheasdfjkl said:
It’s sort of advanced level SJ, not that likely to be relevant in a brief exposition of one’s viewpoint.
LikeLike
Brock said:
“I am not in the habit of giving myself labels, which I leave to others.” — Bertrand Russell
Perhaps after this current exercise is over, those of us (including myself) who don’t really feel comfortable identifying as “pro” or “anti” could answer these questions – or maybe different questions – and let other people vote on which team we belong to.
LikeLiked by 2 people
ozymandias said:
To quote what I said to Murphy about the same topic:
LikeLike
Brock said:
Sure, for the purposes of this exercise. I just think it might be an interesting exercise to get responses from those who don’t identify as either.
So far, I can’t say that I reliably identify with any of the “pro” responses. Maybe once we see the “antis”, I’ll think, “Oh yes, I agree with that, I must be an anti.” But I expect I’ll find them equally off-putting for one reason or another.
LikeLike
tcheasdfjkl said:
I would recommend the ambivalent people not just alternate but flip a coin before voting in each poll.
LikeLike
jossedley said:
I do like Brock’s idea of publishing neutral or ambivalent people’s answers to your three questions and letting the commenters and voters hash it out.. (Or Brock, you could just summarize your views in the comments)
LikeLike
ruadhan said:
I hate picking a side, but I’ll reluctantly identify as anti-SJ. I know I can switch back and forth if I’m not sure but then again, that’s too much wavering (and I know I’ll be going “Did I vote as anti or as pro last time I voted?”) so I’ll stick with anti-SJ.
LikeLike
ruadhan said:
I think this is anti, because it is so meticulously researched, and I’m saying researched because it uses a term I haven’t seen in general use. It’s the kind of theoretical term that would only come up if you’re really doing good research to make a convincing case. Bravo, but I still say anti, not pro.
I’ll look a right idiot when this turns out to be genuine, won’t I? 🙂
LikeLike
Autolykos said:
Don’t worry. Anyone who’s not paranoid around SJ must be crazy…
LikeLike
dndnrsn said:
Pro-SJ and I guess I categorize myself as pro-SJ, if I gotta choose.
Is “subaltern” “academic SJ” language? I’d only ever seen it in a context of Indian history – “subaltern studies” is a particular approach focusing less on European accounts of things. This looks like a rationalist or rationalist-adjacent pro-SJ person who has basically constructed their own form of SJ from first principles. This is a very rationalist/rationalist-adjacent thing to do. So, the sort of pro-SJ person one would expect to read this blog. I would be unsurprised if this is a person with a STEM background: from what I’ve seen of academic social justice language, it isn’t this different from internet social justice language.
The last paragraph is the only place I have any real reason to suspect this. The misspelling of Milo Yiannopoulous’ name isn’t really a clue (I notice that in the 5th or so paragraph of the first question, “effected” is there instead of “affected”, so another typo is not a surprise) but someone who knows who Auernheimer is probably would know that Milo is not a leader of the alt-right.
LikeLike
Anon. said:
>This looks like a rationalist or rationalist-adjacent pro-SJ person
Why do you say that? The answer to #1 seems like a laundry list of things rationalists try to avoid.
LikeLike
dndnrsn said:
I did say “rationalist-adjacent” – I mean, I wouldn’t call myself a rationalist, but here I am. Or, the new hotness is “rationalist-adjacent-adjacent”. (I’m irrational and proud of it).
The clearly thought-out but (as far as I can tell – please correct me, someone, if I’m wrong) sui generis systematizing is, at least in my perception, fairly typical to “rationalist spaces”.
And this: “Respect for the truth means arguing in good faith, avoiding lies, and supporting positions with evidence.” seems pretty fine by rationalist standards. Or this: “Counterpublics are necessary, but it is important not to let free expressions of anger degenerate into toxicity and domination by a clique.”
LikeLike
pansnarrans said:
I wavered here, as there are some red flags – like opposition to support for freedom of speech in universities, and the overt statement that intra-group support should be unidirectional (the example given being that men should go out of their way to support women in conversation, but that this doesn’t apply in the other direction). These sounded like they might come from a negative stereotype of SJs as “prejudiced in reverse”.
However, if this is an anti-SJ faking it, they’ve put a hell of a lot of work into it, down to establishing different forms of respect and different types of space, and then discussing how these interact with each other. It’s very thoughtfully argued and pretty consistent. The points I disagree with I’ve had arguments about with decent and intelligent SJs in real life. So I’m saying this is real.
(If I’m right and the author’s reading this, first paragraph was not meant as snark. I’m SJ, you’re SJ; we disagree on a couple of priorities.)
LikeLike
Pingback: SJ and Anti-SJ ITT: The Results! | Thing of Things