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!
What discourse norms do you tend to follow? Why? Do you think everyone else should follow them, and why?
Communication is like dancing: it’s better when both people stay in sync. And it really is both people’s jobs to do their best at that.
How much should I invest in figuring out the other person’s point of view? How hard should I work not to offend them? That’s always going to be a judgment call. It sounds good to say “you never need to offend anybody” or “I’ll say what I believe and it’s their problem if they don’t like how it sounds”, but life isn’t that simple.
If you’re teaching a class for novices, it’s a failure on your part if you give a lecture for experts instead, and it’s a failure on their part if they don’t pay attention. Same in ordinary discussion: it really is part of being a good person to avoid needless confusion or offense, and it’s also part of being a good person to avoid assuming the worst about whatever the other person said that annoyed you.
Listening, you can sum this up mostly with Miller’s Law: “To understand what another person is saying, you must assume that it is true and try to imagine what it could be true of.”
Talking, it comes down to spending just a little bit of time to remember the other person’s perspective. If they tell you they want to be called Alice and not Al, believe them! People get caught up on trying to always get it right — you can’t — but it’s worth a lot to just try a little to remember people’s preferences. If they know you’re paying some attention to them, it’s a lot easier for them to relax and pay attention to you. That makes for better communication.
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 in the verdict of history. For centuries, the people on top kept saying they just deserved it. They were on top because they were naturally better. That even if you gave other people a shot, no one else could do as good a job.
Guess what? The people on top kept being wrong.
Commoners couldn’t possibly govern, they said, and then England’s republic outdid France’s monarchy. Women couldn’t possibly be good scientists, they said, and then Noether and Curie produced outstanding mathematics and chemistry. Asians could never do high-end technology, they said, and now we get robots and microchips from Japan. Africans couldn’t possibly handle democracy, they said, and now we’re on to two generations of free and fair elections in Botswana.
So now when the people on top say, “There’s no use making an effort to help out ‘those’ people, if they’ve got it harder than us it’s only their natural lot,” I’m skeptical. The elites have been wrong about that for two hundred years. I think they’re probably wrong this time too.
What would convince me I’m the one wrong this time, and not them? What would convince me that the systematic difficulties of women, or minorities, or the disabled were only their ‘natural lot’?
Good studies showing the actual causes of difficulty lay elsewhere. For example, suppose there was a good study showing that immigrants from Purpletonia are underpaid simply because of low IQ from a lack of iodine in their diet. That would make me worry about prejudice against Purpletonians less, and access to iodized salt more.
Conservatives like to insist that the virtuous succeed, that the pure won’t be violated. Listen, folks, if you could actually document how to teach virtue and measure purity and show in studies that it works even for the disadvantaged, that would be great!
“Social justice warrior” sounds cute, but I don’t like being mad at people. I would love to discover that the problems of the suffering have a fix that doesn’t require me to be mad about racism and sexism and so forth. I would love to discover “virtue brings security and success” was as effective for marginalized groups as for white men.
But after two hundred years of the conservative view being wrong, after two hundred years of finding the problem is barriers to access, not virtue — the burden of proof is on them.
When we see a systematic disadvantage, I need to see specific evidence that it arises by a natural and fair process. Otherwise my the default assumption is that the disadvantage is both unfair and fixable.
So to convince me, you can’t just say “we haven’t succeeded in raising Purpletonian incomes after twenty years, therefore we’re entitled to sit back and believe it’s their natural lot.” What convinces me is a substantive alternate explanation, like “we show that Purpletonian outcomes are strongly correlated with IQ, and the IQ difference is entirely driven by dietary iodine.”
“It’s their natural lot” has been the wrong explanation for two hundred years. How likely is it that it’s suddenly the right explanation now?
On the other hand, even if you can’t convince me I’m wrong about the unfairness, it’s not very hard to convince me that I have the wrong solution.
I like studies. I like experimental data. I believe their results.
For example, bilingual teaching was an educational intervention that didn’t bring up minority-group performance. There have been others like that — education seems really hard to improve, even when you’ve got a plausible idea and some impressive single-school results. That has made me think we’d need more evidence before broadly adopting the next brand-new education intervention.
And I’m a big believer in “start small and scale it up.” So if you say to me, gosh, let’s try this in one city before we try it nationwide, I’ll happily agree to that. If I’m right, I expect it to be a lot easier anyway to persuade you after we have the data.
What I won’t settle for is doing nothing, or waiting until we have some magic perfect solution. The people who are suffering deserve better than that.
So in general, if I support a social justice measure, it’s either because I expect it to have measurable positive impacts or because I expect people to find it easy to do once they stop complaining and try it. (How do I measure the value of calling someone by their preferred pronouns? Not easily. But it’s not hard to just do it.) Either way, if I’m proven wrong I’m willing to go back.
But history makes me expect to often be proven right.
Explain Gamergate.
The net makes anonymous harrassment easy, and online gaming, in particular, has long had a “talk trash at other players” tradition. Sad to say, most of the trash-talkers just think of it as fun and never reckon that they’re really hurting or harrassing people, even when the person they attack is actually vulnerable.
Then, a small number of actually committed sexists decided that it would be great to introduce the trash-talkers to women who made the mistake of having opinions on the Internet while female.
It’s not really about gaming, or about hating women either. It’s just the same impulse that little kids have to make toilet jokes — hey, look, I said a dirty word! I got a reaction out of you! And since the women were perceived as outsiders to “real” gaming — after all, they were women, they couldn’t be proper gamers, right? — it seemed like fair game, they were the “enemy team” and it was okay to “talk trash” at them.
For any individual harrasser, it was, and still is, just a game. The awful thing is that for the harrassed women, it’s much, much worse.
Treating any of this as meaningfully about the social justice movement or changes in society is giving the problem a dignity it just doesn’t deserve. It’s juvenile insult-flinging that got turbocharged by Internet anonymity into serious harrassment and stalking.
John said:
I have been operating under the assumption that “SJ” posts that don’t mention Zoe in the GamerGate response are much more likely to be antiSJers who’ve noticed that the dumber SJers pretend it’s not about Zoe and are using that position as a weakman under the assumption that SJers secretly know that Zoe is indefensible. It is now occurring to me that I might have vastly underestimated SJers’ (possibly feigned) ignorance of GamerGate, and that most of these responses might be real SJ answers that I’ve been rejecting because I had an at least moderately steelmanned version of the SJ position in mind.
Also, I wonder why there are two posts today.
LikeLike
memeticengineer said:
My impression is that pro-GGers are more likely to think it’s not about Zoe, at least not any more, but rather about nominally “ethics in games journalism” but actually “opposing SJ-centric game critics and to some extent SJ in other cultural niches”. None of the current focus seems to be about Zoe at all. Anti-GGers are more likely to think of the whole thing as being about “harassing women out of games” and Zoe is one of the poster girls for this. SJ folk might either fit that anti-GG mold, or perhaps have avoided the whole mess and thus have only the vague knowledge exhibited in this post.
I would expect the sincere anti-SJ entries for the GG question to either not mention Zoe or quickly gloss over her as a point of departure and move on to other things.
Conclusion: smells real. Also, at the kind/charitable/reasonable end of the SJ spectrum so it would be nice if it was indeed real.
LikeLiked by 3 people
pansnarrans said:
I’m pro, and while gamergate mainly passed me by, I suspect if I’d heard about it via a mainstream site rather than SSC, my response to the third question would have been “Oh, wasn’t that that thing in the papers about women being harassed out of videogame blogs?” This is part of why I voted pro (the rest being “basically everything else in the article).
LikeLike
spiralingintocontrol said:
I just assume that anyone who actually knows what happened with Gamergate in any detail is anti-SJ, and 90% of the time I’m right.
LikeLiked by 1 person
memeticengineer said:
90% probability seems about right. Interestingly, 9:1 is very close to the ratio of subscriptions to the most obviously invested pro-GG subreddit and the most obviously invested anti-GG subreddit. There’s doubtless a much larger number of total people who hate and disdain GG but are not invested enough to know the details.
LikeLike
San said:
I’ve said this in previous threads, but it bears repeating: it’s not that SJ people believe Zoe Quinn is indefensible. It’s not that they think she’s defensible either. The pro-SJ side largely sees Zoe’s personal virtue or lack thereof as completely irrelevant; treating it as an issue of any importance whatsoever, regardless of the conclusion, is a pretty clear tell that the writer is pro-GG.
LikeLiked by 2 people
San said:
(That said, it’s not the only tell when it comes to the Gamergate question. I’m pretty suspicious of this “GG is mostly about trash talk and not hating women” theory – I guess it’s a possible pro-SJ position, but it would be fairly idiosyncratic, and it seems slightly more likely to come from the anti-SJ-but-not-especially-pro-GG side.)
LikeLike
MugaSofer said:
It’s going to be pretty interesting checking all these “surefire tells” if/when we learn which answers were which.
LikeLiked by 5 people
sniffnoy said:
I just want to say yay for speeding these up!
LikeLiked by 5 people
dantobias (@dantobias) said:
It’s tomorrow already!
This one may be a professional writer; lots of clever wording, and a catchy opening sentence.
If they are professional, they may be good enough to write convincingly on either side, but I’ll say it’s pro-SJ.
LikeLike
Donbas said:
This sounds extremely genuine and the answer to #2 is going to give me a lot to think about.
LikeLike
Walter said:
2 in one day! Thanks Ozy!
I’m unsure about what they mean in some parts of 2 (I feel like they sort of skipped the “what do you believe” part of the question), but I’m still voting real on this. The author got the tone right, the dripping contempt, and I’ll forgive a lot of eliding for a response that *feels* right.
Walter Picks:
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
12: ASJ, unsure
13: ASJ, certain
14: ASJ, certain
15: SJ, unsure
16: SJ, certain
17: SJ, certain
LikeLiked by 1 person
Doyle said:
ENGLAND WAS NOT A REPUBLIC
LikeLiked by 1 person
Machine Interface said:
There are four kinds of countries: republics (the US), monarchies (Saudi Arabia), monarchies that pretend to be republics (North Korea) and republics that pretend to be monarchies – of which England/Britain is a definite example.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Doyle said:
That is true of England now but was absolutely not true of the period (the second half of the 17 and p much the entire 18th centuries) that Britain and France were continuously at war and Britain was more democratic than France.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Protagoras said:
Glorious Revolution was 1688. While it took many more years for the system to evolve from “complicated balance of power” to “house of commons has effectively total control,” it already stopped really fitting the monarchy model after the Glorious Revolution. No 18th century English monarch had power remotely comparable to the Sun King.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Doyle said:
The appropriate term is constitutional monarchy
LikeLike
dantobias (@dantobias) said:
And if you believe the ’80s BBC series “Yes Minister”, it then evolved to “Civil service bureaucrats have effectively total control.”
LikeLike
Susebron said:
Yeah, the French Revolutionary Wars would probably be a better example, with the Republic fighting off most of Europe even before it became a monarchy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Doyle said:
That is a great point and France did have the strongest army in Europe from shortly after the levée en masse to 1812. Which can be explained in part by France’s switch to promoting people on merit and a political system that made soldiers feel more personally invested in the outcome of battles (this is when they wrote the Marseillaise). It’s interesting because it would accord with their idea of successfulness as the correct criterion for whether progressives were right about some group, like Curie or Botswana. On the other hand revolutionary France provides a lot of problems for people who want to make arguments about being on the right side of history. And I think American progressives are much less enthusiastic about French nationalism than European ones.
LikeLike
Fisher said:
Finally! My time machine works!
The fact that the entire second answer is based on a strawman and a conveniently chosen timeline should make me declare this “fake.” But it’s written so well that I’m picking sincere. I guess writing that gives me a gut feeling is by definition passing the ITT.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Donbas said:
Can you elaborate more on your problems with the second answer?
LikeLike
jossedley said:
I don’t know the name for the fallacy (cherry-picking?), but the author picks out the times people were wrong in the past to assume conservatives were always wrong.
Some reforms work out terribly, some work out poorly, some work out moderately well, and some work out well.
I can accurately say that conservatives were opposed to: Robspierre, Stalin, Pol Pot, Che Gueverra, the progressive eugenics movement. Pacifists were opposed to US entry into WWII, and predicted that Bush I’s Iraq war would be a military failure. Ecology advocates confidently predicted mass starvation, global cooling, etc. That doesn’t mean that any of those groups can be safely ignored on any current question.
On reflection, I think the fallacy is survivor bias – the author takes the reforms that have stood the test of time, states that conservatives were wrong to oppose them, and concludes that conservatives can be safely assumed to be always wrong. It would be equally suspect to take all the reforms that failed the test of time, observe that conservatives were opposed to them, and conclude that conservatives were always right.
LikeLiked by 4 people
jossedley said:
To be fair to the author, the essay then goes on to take an experimentalist approach to reform, arguing that reforms should be tried out and monitored to see their effects. Read charitably, the point of that paragraph is that it’s POSSIBLE that SJ reforms will produce positive results, so we should experiment with them and see.
LikeLike
Autolykos said:
Well written, but I don’t really see it arguing for any typical SJ point anywhere in the article. It’s mostly a classic social-liberal position (and one I could get behind for the most part, especially the GG paragraph – if you believe GG was about feminism or video games, you do not understand 4chan).
Could be a sincere, but mostly unaligned position, and I usually voted Pro on those. But this time, my gut says it’s off. It I had to give a reason, I’d say it was way too careful in avoiding any SJ topics, but I guess that isn’t my true objection.
LikeLike
jossedley said:
Like #16, this is really tough. It’s close enough to the line that it could easily be someone with some reasoning processes in common with a lot of the ASJ writers who sees themselves as moderate SJ, or an ASJ writer posing as moderate SJ. The author uses almost no jargon, and relies on rhetoric and style to make points, and anticipates ASJ points on most topics, especially on GG.
On balance, I think fake, but I’m not super confident. The evidentiary basis is IMHO a little too writerly and metaphorical for this writer, who otherwise seems more analytical.
LikeLike
jdbreck said:
I voted pro. All the points made are things I’ve seen argued in SJ circles. Then reading the comments and seeing a couple commenters wanting to argue with the points themselves makes me extra-certain it’s genuine, as points that seem patently obvious to an insider have an odd tendency to provoke argument from someone on the other side.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Doyle said:
I’m not on the other side but I will scream at anybody who calls 18th century England a republic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
curiouskiwicat said:
Britain was a Republic from 1649 to 1660. Most historians think it was a disaster, mainly because it was run by a bunch of literal Puritans who banned Christmas and dancing. 1/3 of the Catholic population of Ireland was killed in wars they fought to control the place; they caused widespread famine from ‘scorched earth’ policies and sold Irish to work as indentured labourers in the West Indies. So no, in 1649 commoners running the kingdom was problematic at best and a disaster at worst.
Whoever said Africans couldn’t handle democracy and Asians couldn’t build microchips?
Only a true SJW could make so many sweeping Whiggish generalizations.
I vote Pro.
LikeLiked by 2 people
pansnarrans said:
The only way this is fake is if the writer’s been reading loads of submissions and comments and adapting their submission accordingly. And if so, good for them. It definitely reads as 100% believably pro.
LikeLike
Lawrence D'Anna said:
This is a tough one. The second answer is so abjectly silly. Really? The verdict of history rules in favor of class struggle? Of ethnic or sectarian politics? Straight white males being blind to their privilege is the same as the ancien regime?
A complex democratic-republican-capitalist-(maybe with a reluctant welfare state) balance of power that at least makes the effort to look like it treats people as individuals and tries to reward merit is what the verdict of history favors. It amazes me that social justice people could actually see their cause as analogous to the struggle against absolute monarchy, or segregation, or slavery, or suffrage, or the women’s movement of the 60s. There is an enormous difference between literal institutions of power that are explicitly oppressive in their ideology, doctrines and practice, and “implicit bias” and “micro-aggressions”.
Props for going for real titans like Noether and Curie instead of silly nonsense like Hedy Lamarr.
Props for not endorsing any form of McArthyism.
Overall well written.
I’m guessing pro.
LikeLike
Elzh said:
The part about democracy was fairly intriguing to me. They seem to take it for granted that different cultures *can* do democracy well, and I don’t think that’s realistic or true. Impoverished societies, societies where violence is the typical method of determining government, societies where much of the population in illiterate and/or uneducated, and so on, really *are* demonstrably less capable at democracy, and it seems fairly Eurocentric/America-centric to assume that democracy is desirable and achievable for all countries and cultures.
It also hinges on a few examples to “disprove” conservative theories, and doesn’t seem to realize that these could be anomalies or otherwise unrepresentative.
But all in all it seems incorrect in an authentic way.
LikeLike
Nita said:
I hope we all agree that poverty, political violence and lack of education are themselves undesirable things that every country should seek to minimize.
Overcoming these problems may be difficult, but why would take that make (actually well-functioning) democracy an undesirable end goal?
LikeLike
Elzh said:
Hmm. I do agree that these things are bad things, and I agree that well-functioning democracy is probably a desirable end goal, if it can be achieved.
But my point here was mostly that democracy is *really* hard to achieve, and that certain countries, due to cultural and economic factors, might not be able to “handle” democracy. A lack of education and political violence, for example, can also be cultural attributes in addition to just circumstances. These factors tend to be less common in established Western democracies, and more common in less established postcolonial countries.
A single example – Botwana – doesn’t show that democracy works for “African countries” (which is also a very weird category to make absolute generalizations about).
So I guess it’s a bit like Communism. It’s a lovely idea, and I would agree that a well-functioning Communist country would be extremely nice. But every time that Communism has ever been tried, it doesn’t work out.
Likewise, when democracy has been tried in countries with a tradition of political violence and not much education and general poverty, the results have been decidedly mixed.
LikeLike
argleblarglebarglebah said:
This was quite hard, but I voted anti, for two reasons:
1) The examples given in answer #2 are.. odd. I’m not sure what SJer would use England beating France in the 18th and 19th centuries as an example of the correctness of SJ.
2) The author keeps using an analogy to Purpletonians. First of all, many SJers regard that sort of analogy to fictional races as racist itself. But second of all, the analogy itself is also very strange, involving salt and average IQ heavily, both of which I don’t think the average SJer would think are important.
This seems to me to have several tells not just that the author isn’t SJ but that they’re some sort of alt-rightist, like a neoreactionary or a HBDer. Full apologies to the author if they’re not, of course, because that’s certainly an accusation beyond the ordinary “I don’t think you’re actually pro”.
LikeLiked by 5 people
dantobias (@dantobias) said:
Giving analogies using fictional races/nationalities/etc. is a common rationalist thing (really geeky types use metasyntactic variables in the syntax of some programming or markup language, like $Race1), to make a point without adding in the emotional baggage of actual ethnic conflicts.
LikeLiked by 2 people
argleblarglebarglebah said:
Yes, and what I and many other SJs believe is that the emotional baggage that comes with talking about race is a necessary and healthy part of talking about race. If you would say something that sounds racist when you use actual races, it’s still racist if you talk about purple people. You aren’t actually making what you were saying not racist, you are merely hiding its racism behind a level of metaphor.
LikeLiked by 2 people
curiouskiwicat said:
I think the reason I might choose to use a generic race in a discussion is if I feel there is uncertainty or disagreement about whether some actual “race” is oppressed or whether a particular kind of racial distinction counts as racism. It makes a difference, because as I see “racism”, making distinctions based on race are only racist when they use race as a tool of oppression against a marginalized racial group (or individual, possibly).
It’s not necessarily racist, for instance, to argue for quotas for disadvantaged racial groups if the quota helps relieve their disadvantage. But then people often disagree about who is marginalized or disadvantaged in different contexts. Using hypothetical “races” can help to avoid discussing those disagreements so that you can agree on the principles without having to immediately see how they apply. I can see how that can be odious, but I also think it is helpful if you want to discuss principles about racism without having to completely agree on the facts in the context they’re applied.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Autolykos said:
@argleblarglebarglebah:
I don’t think it’s about how racist talking about disadvantaged purple people is compared to using concrete examples. The advantage of fictional examples is that nobody can (sensibly) derail the discussion by disputing any of the assumptions you make. So you can discuss the implications of the hypothetical case first, and later check whether these assumptions apply to any real-world example.
It’s just a really handy way of separating logic from facts.
LikeLiked by 2 people
jossedley said:
@argleblarglebarglebah:
Do you think the use of Purpletonians is racist in this article? (I think it’s not racist as used, but if you do, I’d be very interested to hear more).
LikeLike
Doyle said:
These are good points, and I sort of think that mentioning the fate of 17th century France as evidence that they are on the right side of history is a little bit of a tell. It’s almost like they’re making fun of SJs by mentioning that and not talking about Robespierre. Maybe that’s over-reading though. Also I think your thoughts about how the emotional baggage we associate with race is a useful part of talking about race are really interesting. I think I agree that sometimes it would be bad to get rid of that baggage, but that “purpletonian” type constructions have their place.
LikeLiked by 2 people
jdbreck said:
Your answer is making me doubt my vote.
LikeLike
Toggle said:
Pretty sure that’s a Steven Universe reference in the first sentence, but I’ll be jiggered if I know whether that’s a giveaway for ‘pro’ or ‘anti’.
In the end, I went ‘anti’ because of the oddly large scope of its history, as a lot of other comments note. You just can’t get that deep in without finding sentences like “The Republic has no need of scientists of chemists, the course of justice will not be delayed.” It’s certainly possible to be pro-SJ and also well informed about the moral failings of historical leftist revolutions, but it doesn’t seem likely that you could view history as a unilateral vindication of leftist policy. Plus, social justice isn’t really rearward-focused. “On the right side of history” in SJ means being well-regarded by one’s descendants; it takes a conservative or reactionary bent to worry about agreeing with your ancestors.
There’s also the acknowledgement that iodine increases IQ in a population. In a rationalist-adjacent space, that’s kind of common knowledge, but I’d expect it to be uncomfortable bedfellows with the core ideology of a SJ-aligned author. Here, it’s given a central place, rather than feeling like an external obstacle to be navigated around.
LikeLike
MugaSofer said:
I don’t think that’s a Steven Universe reference, but I think being an SU fan is evidence a person is pro-SJ; the dancing is how the genderqueer lesbian rocks have sex, after all, and the show seems to be mostly beloved of SJ people. (Every time I can think of that the fandom did something toxic, it was in an SJ way.)
I think it’s pretty common to use historical analogies to demonstrate which way history is “moving”, like interracial marriage being compared to gay marriage, opposition to stuff associated with Christianity being compared to Galileo; even the recent asexuality movement is almost entirely debated using comparisons to the history of the gay rights movement. It’s not about respecting ancestors, so much as tarring your opponent with their mistakes.
Although “democracy outcompetes monarchy” is nicked from SSC’s anti-nRx stuff, unless I miss my mark.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nita said:
I thought it was a reference to, you know, actual dancing 🙂
And apparently True SJ-Aligned People are not supposed to believe in malnutrition. I learn more and more about this mysterious group in these comments.
LikeLike
jossedley said:
I’d guess that on average, SJ people are less likely to believe in IQ, not nutrition. 😉
Steve Sailer used to write about iodine and IQ, but I’d expect (again on average) an SJ writer to focus more on lead.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Toggle said:
^
|
That one, yeah. SJ people believe in malnutrition, sure, but it would be *extremely* unusual for a SJ-aligned author to affirm IQ as having a potential role in disparate outcomes between a Western and ‘Purpletonian’ nation.
LikeLike
Autolykos said:
Would they also deny malnutrition having an effect on outcomes? And if not, what would their causal graph look like?
I mean, it is very hard to separate general health from (effective!) IQ. Without actually knowing any studies, I’d be willing to take a bet at good odds that people who are feeling sick will do worse on IQ tests. And I’m also quite confident that doing well on IQ tests is at least somewhat correlated with productivity and economic success.
LikeLike
Toggle said:
“I’m also quite confident that doing well on IQ tests is at least somewhat correlated with productivity and economic success.”
That’s the point that (most) SJ-aligned people would disagree, is my guess. They might agree that being sick lowers your measured IQ score, but I would expect them to dispute the idea that IQ is a meaningful measure with predictive power. The most common argument, in my experience, is that IQ testing is hopelessly western-centric and that we expect Purpletonians to perform poorly on IQ tests because they were invented by white men who import their own biases to the test. Therefore, any correlation between low IQ scores in the population and low economic output is spurious at best- with economic failures almost universally attributed to the history of colonialism in Purpletonia.
LikeLiked by 1 person
dndnrsn said:
Another person who is on the pro-SJ side of the spectrum insofar as it exists in the rationalist/rationalist-adjacent sphere.
The Gamergate explanation doesn’t sound like what a fake would come up with.
LikeLike
Pingback: SJ and Anti-SJ ITT: The Results! | Thing of Things