Split Thread Issues around language and offense, with reference to transgenderism.

[AdamSK]

This is an interesting way of looking at the issue. Of course, some people can recognize that an intent to offend actually can be the subject of some people's posts. Of course, any calling out of that offense garners cries of Tone Police, or virtue-signalling, as though we should all just roll over and let those intent on causing offense continue without any pushback.

Earlier you insisted you weren't accusing Arg of intending offense. Have you changed your mind?

 

[Belz...]

This is an interesting way of looking at the issue. Of course, some people can recognize that an intent to offend actually can be the subject of some people's posts. Of course, any calling out of that offense garners cries of Tone Police, or virtue-signalling, as though we should all just roll over and let those intent on causing offense continue without any pushback.

Well, the accusation of tone policing and virtue signaling IS an accusation that you are asking people to conform and not discuss (a sort of 'listen and believe'), so I find it ironic that you see the accusation as a request to conform as well.

I don't know if it's just because you can't see the discussion any other way, but it's actually possible that someone may disagree with your worldview on the topic, and so so reasonably and rationally. The solution isn't to insist that they are wrong, or call them names or try to shame them into compliance or appeal to their emotions, but to actually discuss the issue dispassionately. None of what we say here will have much of an impact in the world, so there's no point in taking everything on a moral or value judgment level.

Take my describing the transgender 'condition' (for lack of a better term) as a genetic defect, and how it was interpreted as demeaning to transgender people. Even though it was a description of the genetic aspect of this topic only, it was seen by many as being some sort of moral judgment against transgender people. This is despite a LOT of us having genetic defects of some sort without a value being attached to the description, and despite me being very much in favour of transgender rights. It gives the impression that I _must_ agree with every single detail, or risk being labeled as ideologically impure -- a "bigot". This seems to stem from the impression that any disagreement, even one based on fact, that could even remotely be interpreted as negative, in and of itself 'invalidates' the experience or even the existence of trans people. And invalidation is the cardinal sin of social justice.

Hence the tone policing and virtue signaling: no one wants to be labeled a bigot for not being ideologically pure enough, so one instead makes sure to label _others_ as bigots for same, presumably in an effort to show how not a bigot they are. At the very least, this is the impression that it makes.

 

[wareyin]

Earlier you insisted you weren't accusing Arg of intending offense. Have you changed your mind?

[channeling Arg] I didn't claim that Arg was intending offense. How can you read what I wrote and get that impression? What a weird conversation. [/channeling Arg]

 

[AdamSK]

[channeling Arg]

If you don't want to discuss the matter, then drop it. Maybe address Arg's actual points or the OP subject?

 

[wareyin]

Well, the accusation of tone policing and virtue signaling IS an accusation that you are asking people to conform and not discuss (a sort of 'listen and believe'), so I find it ironic that you see the accusation as a request to conform as well.

At no point were you asked (or told) not to discuss. You were merely (repeatedly) asked if you could understand that your choice of terms in this circumstance was offensive. Using an equally accurate term that does not cause offense easily allows one to continue discussion. Using the offensive term in a strictly scientific or academic setting (which this is not) similarly allows the discussion to continue. Posturing that one can use whatever offensive language one wants, and it's up to the people one is hurling insults at to toughen up and not respond, that changes this from a "discussion" to a "lecture" (at best).

I don't know if it's just because you can't see the discussion any other way, but it's actually possible that someone may disagree with your worldview on the topic, and so so reasonably and rationally. The solution isn't to insist that they are wrong, or call them names or try to shame them into compliance or appeal to their emotions, but to actually discuss the issue dispassionately. None of what we say here will have much of an impact in the world, so there's no point in taking everything on a moral or value judgment level.

Take my describing the transgender 'condition' (for lack of a better term) as a genetic defect, and how it was interpreted as demeaning to transgender people. Even though it was a description of the genetic aspect of this topic only, it was seen by many as being some sort of moral judgment against transgender people. This is despite a LOT of us having genetic defects of some sort without a value being attached to the description, and despite me being very much in favour of transgender rights. It gives the impression that I _must_ agree with every single detail, or risk being labeled as ideologically impure -- a "bigot". This seems to stem from the impression that any disagreement, even one based on fact, that could even remotely be interpreted as negative, in and of itself 'invalidates' the experience or even the existence of trans people. And invalidation is the cardinal sin of social justice.

I'm not sure if you realize this, but applying the first paragraph of these 2 to the second paragraph may give you some insights. When your choice of language is "seen by many" to say what you did not intend, the solution isn't to insist they are wrong. Rather, a little self reflection may tell you that your choice of words are not conveying the meaning you intend, and so change your words to more properly say what you mean. Unless, of course, you do mean to insult or cause offense, in which case, jump to accusations of tone policing.

Hence the tone policing and virtue signaling: no one wants to be labeled a bigot for not being ideologically pure enough, so one instead makes sure to label _others_ as bigots for same, presumably in an effort to show how not a bigot they are. At the very least, this is the impression that it makes.

If one applies your own stated reasoning here, one cannot help but come to the conclusion that your choice of words, and defense of that choice, can accurately describe you as a bigot. If it is possible to use the word accurately, it must be used, no matter how much you don't like to hear it, correct? Of course, you will note that at no time have I labeled you a bigot, or called you any other name, so this paragraph is meaningless in context.

 

[Belz...]

At no point were you asked (or told) not to discuss. [...] Using an equally accurate term that does not cause offense easily allows one to continue discussion.

But this is exactly what I've said: you are asking me to refrain from using words, even in a scientific context, in order to avoid potentially offending someone, or else see the discussion shut down.

Using the offensive term in a strictly scientific or academic setting (which this is not) similarly allows the discussion to continue.

Should I take this to mean that only scientists in the lab should be allowed to use these terms? That's nonsense. When discussing science, that is a scientific context.

I'm not sure if you realize this, but applying the first paragraph of these 2 to the second paragraph may give you some insights. When your choice of language is "seen by many" to say what you did not intend, the solution isn't to insist they are wrong. Rather, a little self reflection may tell you that your choice of words are not conveying the meaning you intend, and so change your words to more properly say what you mean. Unless, of course, you do mean to insult or cause offense, in which case, jump to accusations of tone policing.

What's ironic is that you are still using the exact same sort of rhetorical ploys that you said you weren't using. You're still tone policing. Your entire argument hinges on the possibility of offense. Whatever you do, don't ever say anything that could offend.

If one applies your own stated reasoning here, one cannot help but come to the conclusion that your choice of words, and defense of that choice, can accurately describe you as a bigot. If it is possible to use the word accurately, it must be used, no matter how much you don't like to hear it, correct?

Yes, you should be allowed to use it if it were accurate, but it's not.

 

[wareyin]

But this is exactly what I've said: you are asking me to refrain from using words, even in a scientific context, in order to avoid potentially offending someone, or else see the discussion shut down.

As I explicitly said the use of words in a scientific context (which this is not) is ok, I cannot fathom how you come to this conclusion.

Should I take this to mean that only scientists in the lab should be allowed to use these terms? That's nonsense. When discussing science, that is a scientific context.

We are discussing social and current events, not science. Notice which forum header we're in?

What's ironic is that you are still using the exact same sort of rhetorical ploys that you said you weren't using. You're still tone policing. Your entire argument hinges on the possibility of offense. Whatever you do, don't ever say anything that could offend.

Your hyperbole is inaccurate, but noted.

Yes, you should be allowed to use it if it were accurate, but it's not.

Thank you for your permission, but even though calling someone who repeatedly takes bigoted stances a 'bigot' is accurate, I try to refrain from intentionally causing offense. In fact, that's been my point this whole time.

 

[AdamSK]

Looks like the typical misunderstanding of the term "bigot" is coming into play here.

A bigot is a person who is intolerant of views different from their own.

A humanist who insists on equality for everyone and reflexively vilifies and dismisses the arguments of racists without considering them, is a bigot.

A racist who strongly believes in the superiority of blacks and the importance of segregation of the races, who openly considers and responds to arguments different than her own, is NOT a bigot.

I have seen no examples of Arg failing to engage with arguments of positions different than his. The "bigot" label is not appropriate. On the other hand, the attempt to characterize his position and dismiss it based only on that characterization without engaging it, is itself bigotry.

Please make sure your usage conforms to reality. Thanks.

 

[wareyin]

Looks like the typical misunderstanding of the term "bigot" is coming into play here.

A bigot is a person who is intolerant of views different from their own.

A humanist who insists on equality for everyone and reflexively vilifies and dismisses the arguments of racists without considering them, is a bigot.

A racist who strongly believes in the superiority of blacks and the importance of segregation of the races, who openly considers and responds to arguments different than her own, is NOT a bigot.

I have seen no examples of Arg failing to engage with arguments of positions different than his. The "bigot" label is not appropriate. On the other hand, the attempt to characterize his position and dismiss it based only on that characterization without engaging it, is itself bigotry.

Please make sure your usage conforms to reality. Thanks.

Ah, the old 'if you aren't tolerant of my intolerance, you're the 'bigot' defense. I wonder if it will be effective this time?

 

[AdamSK]

Ah, the old 'if you aren't tolerant of my intolerance, you're the 'bigot' defense.

Where has Arg been intolerant? Even if you are correct that his comments are insensitive, how does that translate to intolerance? Intolerance of what views, exactly?

 

[wareyin]

Where has Arg been intolerant? Even if you are correct that his comments are insensitive, how does that translate to intolerance? Intolerance of what views, exactly?

Do you think using words you know will cause offense to your target audience is being tolerant? Do you think telling people that they need to grow a thicker skin just so you can continue to use offensive language is being tolerant? Do you think that Arg has considered the feelings of others in any way, or is his continued insistence on using language he knows is offensive being intolerant?

 

[AdamSK]

Do you think using words you know will cause offense to your target audience is being tolerant? Do you think telling people that they need to grow a thicker skin just so you can continue to use offensive language is being tolerant?

I don't think being offensive speaks to tolerance one way or another.

Do you think that Arg has considered the feelings of others in any way,

Honestly, I think he has. I think he sees this thread of an example of people not actually being offended, but rather attempting to manufacture the possibility of offense because they enjoy that more than addressing his points. I think that Arg doesn't believe that what he is saying is actually hurting anyone.

That is also what I see happening here.

 

[wareyin]

I don't think being offensive speaks to tolerance one way or another.



Honestly, I think he has. I think he sees this thread of an example of people not actually being offended, but rather attempting to manufacture the possibility of offense because they enjoy that more than addressing his points. I think that Arg doesn't believe that what he is saying is actually hurting anyone.

That is also what I see happening here.

You've decided that people are only pretending to be offended because they like it, therefore you can dismiss their points? How tolerant.

 

[AdamSK]

You've decided that people are only pretending to be offended because they like it, therefore you can dismiss their points?

That isn't even logically coherent, because as both Arg and I have pointed out, whether or not a person is offended has no bearing on whether or not their arguments are valid.

So, no, nobody's reasoned argument is being dismissed because it appears that any offense is likely feigned. The fact that offense appears feigned is only relevant to the extent that you are implying it is intolerant to continue to say something when that something is offending someone.

 

[AdamSK]

Also, nobody has claimed to actually be insulted/hurt/offended by Arg's statements. All of the arguments have been that it would be reasonable for a hypothetical transgender person to feel that way about his posts.

 

[wareyin]

Also, nobody has claimed to actually be insulted/hurt/offended by Arg's statements. All of the arguments have been that it would be reasonable for a hypothetical transgender person to feel that way about his posts.

Which pretty well nullifies your claim that people are only pretending to be offended, doesn't it? Nice own goal there.

Anyway, when it comes to tolerance, choosing to use provocative language, or offensive language, then whining that your ideas aren't being tolerated is plainly silly. Using insulting language is not tolerating the person you are trying to be offensive toward. Complaining that your ideas aren't being tolerated kind of gets dwarfed by not tolerating someone as a person.

 

[AdamSK]

Which pretty well nullifies your claim that people are only pretending to be offended, doesn't it?

You said that, not me.

Are you even reading the posts you're responding to? Like, for content? With the principle of charity and everything?

 

[wareyin]

You said that, not me.

Are you even reading the posts you're responding to? Like, for content? With the principle of charity and everything?

You didn't mean that? Then what did you mean by the highlighted?

I don't think being offensive speaks to tolerance one way or another.



Honestly, I think he has. I think he sees this thread of an example of people not actually being offended, but rather attempting to manufacture the possibility of offense because they enjoy that more than addressing his points. I think that Arg doesn't believe that what he is saying is actually hurting anyone.

That is also what I see happening here.

 

[AdamSK]

You didn't mean that? Then what did you mean by the highlighted?

I meant the hypothetical offended transgender reader. I could have been more clear with that. And I will also own up to tacitly accepting your reading of "pretending to be offended" in my immediate reply. But my second reply was an attempt to clarify that I didn't see where anyone had explicitly even claimed to be offended themselves.

 

[AdamSK]

Also, your highlighting breaks the clauses down wrong. It's "people not actually X, but rather Y because they enjoy that more than X." The enjoyment is not part of Y.