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?
I don’t do as much discourse as I used to (I’ve become rather conflict-averse in general, partly because I have a temper and when in a fight I sometimes say things I regret later on), but when I do, I take the “Go With What Works” approach.
Well, I mean, first I ask myself, why am I even trying to change the mind of [specific person I’m arguing with]? What do I think it will accomplish? (The answer to that question doesn’t have to be something huge or Earth-shaking or revolutionary, it can be small-scale, but it does have to be something, there has to be someone who will be helped). Then I default to courtesy, and err on the side of it, though I admit some lapses.
But no, I don’t think everyone should follow the same norms I do, partly because the world would be pretty boring if everyone acted the same way, but mainly because my judgment isn’t flawless, and any concrete set of discourse norms will inevitably get gamed and rules-lawyered anyway (usually in such a way as to prevent already-vulnerable people from speaking up at all). And even though I personally try to default to niceness, I understand the anger that drives more hair-triggery radicalness, even if I think it’s overall less productive.
The one exception to that tolerance (at least for me) is this: involuntary characteristics are not up for ridicule, even when directed at horrible people. I do not engage in thinly veiled fat-shaming/ableism/classism/&c. in the guise of “calling out bigots,” even if the target is really bad, and if I could force the internet to follow one norm this would be it.
A couple scattered thoughts that I try to keep in mind:
Callouts can be a tool of abuse and they can be a last-ditch weapon to combat abuse. If someone denies either of those possibilities, that’s a pretty good sign that they have an agenda and I should be wary of them. I don’t participate in callouts myself, but I don’t deny their occasional necessity.
Civility is a red herring for the reasons you outlined in one post a while back: it’s too easy to hold the outgroup to a ridiculous standard of civility while letting the ingroup get away with anything. Remember how I said that any concrete set of rules gets rules-lawyered? Civility is a perfect example.
One of the uncomfortable truths of the internet is that the popular platitude “Yelling never changed anyone’s mind” is not actually true; people are different from one another and have different motivators, and yes, some people… not all, but some… do respond better to harshness than to niceness (I do reiterate my caveats about asking myself why I’m trying to get my conversation partner to respond in this way, and about how I personally try to err on the side of niceness).
2.2. 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’m not sure I can even accept the premise of this question, really. I mean, yeah, it’s a topic I’ve worried about at times; I was raised in a pretty center-left household and got most of my further political awakenings on the internet, so yeah, I’ve worried about filter bubbles and such (though complaints of “The internet creates filter bubbles” usually just mean “The internet has made me aware of filter bubbles that exist outside my own”), but Yudkowsky’s claim that “political disputes fire brain centers that evolved during times when being on the losing side of a political debate could often mean you’d get killed” kind of glosses over the fact that people are still getting killed over these disputes today. Also, y’know, we live in a world where Donald Trump was actually ahead in the polls for a while there…
As for what evidence or line of reasoning could change my mind? Honestly despite my reflexive contrarianness I often feel my opinions on various topics switching back and forth when I read pretty much any actual good argument that doesn’t consist of jumbled-together buzzwords and platitudes (I mean, a good argument on a topic that is actually a matter of opinion, not stuff like “the Earth is round,” “we landed on the moon” and “Shakespeare wrote the plays”), but in the spirit of your post “The Parable Of The Amateur Physicists,” I think it’s only healthy to be suspicious of mapping a hard-science framework onto a soft-science field.
3. Explain Gamergate.
I think Gamergate can be explained with two stories:
First, the epic trainwreck that was Jordan Owen’s and Davis Aurini’s “The Sarkeesian Effect.” In which a cynical, manipulative charlatan saw a chance to bilk money and clicks out of the people who actually belived the nonsense that comes out of his mouth, and hoodwinked a sincere and well-meaning but incredibly misguided sap into going along with it (then proceeded to blatantly abuse said sap whilst keeping the Patreon donations incoming for as long as possible, because of course he did).
And second, I saw a screencapped post in which someone bragged about having created literally hundreds of fake e-mail accounts to wield during that segment of the campaign when they were spamming advertisers trying to get them to blacklist various sites GG didn’t like (that was a while ago, so I can’t quite remember where the post came from… probably 8chan). What struck me about that post wasn’t just that the guy had created hundreds of fake accounts, but the way he described his elation at doing so. I practically saw the tears of joy as he said how good it felt to support this cause and to be a part of something alongside all the people he’d met there.
And that made me think. This could just be a case of someone being so bored and ennui-addled that he was desperate to feel like he was part of something important, but there might be more to it. See, the sort of people who do most of their socializing in places like reddit, the ‘chans, &c., don’t really have a socially-acceptable outlet for emotions. A cloud of derisive sarcasm hangs over those places, sincerity is the ultimate sin, and any moment of vulnerability or weakness is pounced upon and mocked mercilessly until the victim toughens up. But nothing brings people together like hating the same person, so when Gamergate came along, well, having a sufficiently hateable target as THAT was a catalyst for such bonding that they could actually get away with displaying emotional vulnerability. And if you don’t have a safe outlet for emotional vulnerability, well, you’ll have some really good feelings associated with anything that gives you one (this is also my theory as to why My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic became such a cross-cultural phenomenon).
That’s Gamergate in a nutshell. People who are ennui-addled and/or desperate for human connection, corralled by con men looking for easy money, with a sprinkling of outright nutcases thrown in.
Lawrence D'Anna said:
Totally real. The only way you know weirdly specific cringe examples from side X is if you consume media from side Y making fun of it. If you’re from X and you see X cringe you say “lol that’s dumb” and forget about it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ruadhan said:
Ooh, this was a tough one. I went back and forth on it several times. I’m really looking forward to the end when All Is Revealed and we find out if we were right or pulling guesses out of our ears.
LikeLike
argleblarglebarglebah said:
I’m fairly sure that this one is pro. I was unsure during the first answer (it felt oddly flat for some reason), but then I realized that this person knows so much about SJ inside baseball that if they’re not SJ, they must have left SJ very recently.
(Also, I have to say this answer sounds vaguely like multi from Tumblr.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
dantobias (@dantobias) said:
It’s one of the better-written ones, with a rationalist-flavored SJ position that seems sincere, so I voted Pro.
LikeLike
Fisher said:
Sincere.
Just enough inside baseball and casual scorn-filled gross generalizations about several thousand people they’ve never met.
LikeLike
argleblarglebarglebah said:
I believe this is called “irony”.
LikeLike
Harambe's Ghost said:
Sure reads like Veronica. Sincere.
LikeLike
Gazeboist said:
I agree that it’s sincere, but I don’t think it was Veronica. (I think #10 was Veronica)
LikeLike
Dank said:
Anti – Toughest one for me so far, but even though they should an understanding of intra-SJ conflicts (i.e. the paragraphs about callouts) they never convincingly explain that they believe these negative qualities of SJ aren’t important.
LikeLike
philosoraptorjeff said:
Pro. Pretty much what I’d expect of someone trying to reconcile rationalism and SJ. The first answer seemed sort of limp, but didn’t strike me as having any obvious tells that the person was anything other than they claimed to be.
LikeLike
itsabeast said:
It’s been awhile since I’ve seen an interpretation of Gamergate I hadn’t heard before. It was really insightful.
LikeLike
philosoraptorjeff said:
I agree that it’s a novel take, and while incomplete and one-sided, it gets big bonus points for containing a genuinely plausible explanation for the worst elements of GG rather than just describing them as cartoon villains. (One that, I would add, may also apply to some of the worst elements of the other side.)
I am, however, confused about where financial gain is supposed to enter the picture. But that claim, while weird, wasn’t weird in a way that suggested to me that the person wasn’t what they claimed. I wouldn’t say this is *common* for SJ people, exactly, but it’s not the first time I’ve heard SJ people allude to financial motives on the part of their opponents, in a way that reads like they think money just appears out of nowhere if someone posts enough anti-SJ stuff. I thought this detracted significantly from the praiseworthiness of that part of their answer, though not from its basic plausibility as coming from an SJ aligned person.
LikeLike
Barry Deutsch (@barrydeutsch) said:
This is either a pro or an impressively good fake. I voted pro.
The gamergate answer was particularly impressive, if this is a fake, because it both felt like genuine SJ and (as itsabeast said) isn’t just common sj points recycled.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Walter said:
This sounds fine. Nothing about this screams that is made by someone trying to ape something they only vaguely understand. Pro it is.
1: ASJ, certain
2: SJ, certain
3: SJ, unsure
4: SJ, unsure
5: ASJ, unsure
6: ASJ certain
7: SJ, certain
8: SJ, unsure
9: SJ, certain
10: SJ, certain
11: SJ, certain
A bit worried that I’ve only got 3 set as ASJ so far. I may be far too credulous. Then again, this may just be a test with a finite difficulty, and from 6 onward no one set off my alarms.
LikeLike
liskantope said:
Last time I voted pro-SJ, but commented as follows:
This time around, the SJ content is so vague and barely detectable that I lean towards the hypothesis that the author actually is anti-SJ and doing exactly this. I think this is the first time I’ve voted against the majority.
LikeLike
pillsy said:
I voted pro/pro, though I really think I’m more “anti-anti-SJ” than “pro-SJ”.
LikeLike
Treblato said:
Pro-SJ and voted pro, although the GG=grifting is not as unconventional an angle as some others seem to think (filter bubbles at work).
LikeLike
jossedley said:
Very reasonable and thoughtful, in a way that I think would be tough to fake. Almost certainly pro, and very well written to boot.
LikeLike
dndnrsn said:
Another case of “this person is probably earnest, but if this is SJ, then what is SJ?”
LikeLike
pansnarrans said:
I think this is rationalist SJ, which is why I voted pro.
LikeLike
Pingback: SJ and Anti-SJ ITT: The Results! | Thing of Things