Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Confessions of a bitter cripple (2015)

politicalphilosopher.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 60 posts

Re: Confessions of a bitter cripple (2015)

#11

Post by ZephyrBlu »

mycologos wrote: post #9
ZephyrBlu wrote: post #5

I can understand where the author is coming from, but this is the cruel reality of the world. > "I have sat in philosophy seminars where it was asserted that I should be left to die on a desert island if the choice was between saving me and saving an arbitrary non-disabled person" I would compare this to situations where you are choosing a person with high IQ vs low IQ, or to choosing someone very attractive vs very…

"Bitter cripple", as the author describes it, seems like an inversion of "bitter incel" in that the "bitter cripple" is angered by the special treatment their disability draws from people, and the "bitter incel" is angered by their perception that nobody views them as romantic candidates. One is about freedom to be a generic stranger, one is about the opportunity to be special to somebody (viewed generously).

I interpreted it in the opposite light.

To me, it sounds like the author is angry that people perceive disabled people as being worth less than able people.

I see this as being in line with the experience of incels because their perceived worth is so low that no woman wants to be with them.

Re: Confessions of a bitter cripple (2015)

#12

Post by [deleted] »

ZephyrBlu wrote: post #5

I can understand where the author is coming from, but this is the cruel reality of the world. > "I have sat in philosophy seminars where it was asserted that I should be left to die on a desert island if the choice was between saving me and saving an arbitrary non-disabled person" I would compare this to situations where you are choosing a person with high IQ vs low IQ, or to choosing someone very attractive vs very…

[deleted]

Re: Confessions of a bitter cripple (2015)

#13

Post by fellowniusmonk »

ZephyrBlu wrote: post #5

I can understand where the author is coming from, but this is the cruel reality of the world. > "I have sat in philosophy seminars where it was asserted that I should be left to die on a desert island if the choice was between saving me and saving an arbitrary non-disabled person" I would compare this to situations where you are choosing a person with high IQ vs low IQ, or to choosing someone very attractive vs very…

Is a person on the spectrum or with aspergers or with asthma more worthy of immediate death alone on an island compared to a "typical" person?

You might have unexamined biases and assumptions about the nature of reality.

You might also be a little falling into the is/ought fallacy.

The decision you find easy, rational and ethical, is only so if you have one of a few particular views of human value and you hold it strongly/dogmatically and in your supreme surety have no scruples in executing that position on actual people.

Unexamined and implicit beliefs make life easier for normative people but they are not often intellectually rigorous.

Re: Confessions of a bitter cripple (2015)

#14

Post by fellowniusmonk »

xf1cf wrote: post #10

This is really just a tirade. She's angry because rational philosophy, essentially, is not "intersectional" enough. We've seen the damage this has done to social science (just look at how well it has solved pre-college education). The thesis of her tirade, the desert island and taking the "more capable" person, really left a lot of details out. It appears poised to support her argument rather than pose an interesting…

From her second paragraph that frames the whole article.

> And these things weren’t said as the conclusions of careful, extended argument. They were casual assertions. They were the kind of thing you skip over without pause because it’s the uncontroversial part of your talk.

Did I miss her refuting her own initial assertion later in the article? Are you teasing out or interpreting between the line the position you assert that she espouse because you got it from somewhere later in the article?

Re: Confessions of a bitter cripple (2015)

#15

Post by ZephyrBlu »

fellowniusmonk wrote: post #13
ZephyrBlu wrote: post #5

I can understand where the author is coming from, but this is the cruel reality of the world. > "I have sat in philosophy seminars where it was asserted that I should be left to die on a desert island if the choice was between saving me and saving an arbitrary non-disabled person" I would compare this to situations where you are choosing a person with high IQ vs low IQ, or to choosing someone very attractive vs very…

Is a person on the spectrum or with aspergers or with asthma more worthy of immediate death alone on an island compared to a "typical" person? You might have unexamined biases and assumptions about the nature of reality. You might also be a little falling into the is/ought fallacy. The decision you find easy, rational and ethical, is only so if you have one of a few particular views of human value and you hold it str…

I would like to understand how my comment falls under the is/ought fallacy.

> Is a person on the spectrum or with aspergers or with asthma more worthy of immediate death alone on an island compared to a "typical" person?

That is a nuanced question that I don't have an answer for. I would tend towards saying no though.

> The decision you find easy, rational and ethical, is only so if you have one of a few particular views of human value and you hold it strongly/dogmatically and in your supreme surety have no scruples in executing that position on actual people

I wrote my comment based on conventional societal views and under the assumption that all else equal, these are the rational choices.

I probably tend to align to societal views on this topic, but my comment was not really supposed to be a personal take.

Re: Confessions of a bitter cripple (2015)

#16

Post by xf1cf »

fellowniusmonk wrote: post #14
xf1cf wrote: post #10

This is really just a tirade. She's angry because rational philosophy, essentially, is not "intersectional" enough. We've seen the damage this has done to social science (just look at how well it has solved pre-college education). The thesis of her tirade, the desert island and taking the "more capable" person, really left a lot of details out. It appears poised to support her argument rather than pose an interesting…

From her second paragraph that frames the whole article. > And these things weren’t said as the conclusions of careful, extended argument. They were casual assertions. They were the kind of thing you skip over without pause because it’s the uncontroversial part of your talk. Did I miss her refuting her own initial assertion later in the article? Are you teasing out or interpreting between the line the position you as…

I interpreted the quoted line as a supporting argument for the lack of "care" rational philosophers allegedly have for disabled people. As in, the people speaking made these casual assertions (do not take the disabled person) and this was, according to the article "the least controversial part of your talk". In my comment above I made mention that not only that rational philosophy is capable, at least in passing, of addressing her concern without much thought given to the problem (when posed correctly, and not politically).

This is hubris-cum-excellence on her part. I believe my point still stands. While she lambasts the field of rational philosophy she fails to defend her own assertions while throwing accusations at everything. This is why I called it a tirade. It's very unbecoming of a scholar (a point I made at the end of my post) and I was not surprised in the slightest after browsing her scholarly material.

Re: Confessions of a bitter cripple (2015)

#17

Post by wavepruner »

xf1cf wrote: post #10

This is really just a tirade. She's angry because rational philosophy, essentially, is not "intersectional" enough. We've seen the damage this has done to social science (just look at how well it has solved pre-college education). The thesis of her tirade, the desert island and taking the "more capable" person, really left a lot of details out. It appears poised to support her argument rather than pose an interesting…

This "who should be saved" question is so silly to me.

In reality, the person that gets saved is always the person that the savers want to save. From situation to situation there are a huge number of variables affecting what the savers' desire is. These situations are often unrelated to a person's disability status, and usually have a lot more to do with how much the saver likes the savee.

I'm physically disabled, and some big determining factors as to whether I will be helped or not are: how much I am liked by that person, if I can satisfy their religious or political ideology, if I can give them a way to help me that brings meaning to their lives, and if they can make themselves look like a good person to their peers.

Re: Confessions of a bitter cripple (2015)

#18

Post by jasonschlatt »

sterlind wrote: post #4
__s wrote: post #2

So a lot of the views she's angry against are because there's a tendency to consider extremes: would it be better for everyone in the world to be disabled, or not? Surely it's easier to argue that we should have no people without legs rather than no people with legs But that's not the question at hand. Maybe there's a benefit to diversity of perspectives. In which case the question should be is society better for hav…

> Surely it's easier to argue that we should have no people without legs rather than no people with legs I have never heard anyone be this reductionistic and be serious. that's not at all what the conversation is about. > Maybe there's a benefit to diversity of perspectives. In which case the question should be is society better for having 1% (or 10% or 0.001%, anything above 0%) of the population disabled? Pretty mu…

What if someone offered reliable gene therapy to fix the disability in your kids?

Re: Confessions of a bitter cripple (2015)

#19

Post by beebeepka »

ZephyrBlu wrote: post #15
fellowniusmonk wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is a person on the spectrum or with aspergers or with asthma more worthy of immediate death alone on an island compared to a "typical" person? You might have unexamined biases and assumptions about the nature of reality. You might also be a little falling into the is/ought fallacy. The decision you find easy, rational and ethical, is only so if you have one of a few particular views of human value and you hold it str…

I would like to understand how my comment falls under the is/ought fallacy. > Is a person on the spectrum or with aspergers or with asthma more worthy of immediate death alone on an island compared to a "typical" person? That is a nuanced question that I don't have an answer for. I would tend towards saying no though. > The decision you find easy, rational and ethical, is only so if you have one of a few particular v…

I was willing to give you the benefit of doubt but hiding behind "societal views" and aligning yourself with what "rational" people might do is telling me you are not merely exploring the idea.

I mean, it apparently is an easy choice since it's not your ass on the line

Re: Confessions of a bitter cripple (2015)

#20

Post by dalbasal »

ZephyrBlu wrote: post #5

I can understand where the author is coming from, but this is the cruel reality of the world. > "I have sat in philosophy seminars where it was asserted that I should be left to die on a desert island if the choice was between saving me and saving an arbitrary non-disabled person" I would compare this to situations where you are choosing a person with high IQ vs low IQ, or to choosing someone very attractive vs very…

I didn't get the impression that she was quite at that stereotype "incel" place. Not quite that bitter, despite the headline. Reading this, I felt that she was in transition of ideas... possibly some disillusionment. Maybe shedding some ideas that no longer work for her.

I think there are two defining aspect to that "bitterness place" we associate with "incel philosophy."

One is intense philosophical rationalising of negative feelings. Hence incel "theories" with Chads, Statcies... latching on to OKcupid blogs and the typically bitter spins on sex statistics. It tends to resolve to very nihilistic worldviews. Incels are really just one famous subset of internet bitterness philosophies. There are many, and they often drift to recurring "bad old ideas."

I think that's the vibe you're picking up. The author is clearly philosophically oriented, and navigating her experiences this way. Since she seems to be in a bad place emotionally, her takes on philosophy have this ring.

The second aspect is a, partly imagined, negative "conversation" with society. Feel rejected by women, hate women, hated by women, rejected by society, reject society... People don't enjoy bitter company, and lack of company is embittering. Mutual shunning and conflict, most of it in one head.

I don't get this part at all. She's not rejecting society back, but is feeling somewhat rejected. She also seems quite self aware. "Try to channel my emotions into better philosophy," implies that previous philosophy wasn't.

Personally, I think people mistake what philosophy is. It's not usually a pursuit of truth. There is no "truth" about the worth of a person, society or whatnot. Philosophy (the ones she's engaging in) is about rhetorical frames, perspectives, ways of thinking. It's art. Philosophies are relevant sometimes sense, but rarely "true."

Peter Singers' utilitarianism (I suspect he's her main culprit) is dehumanising to everyone, if you think of it as applying personally to you. Earlier iterations (eg Bentham) have even resulted in nightmarishly dehumanising prison systems, factories and such. OTOH, it's also very affirming of altruism and has had positive result in this regard.

The way people feel about Singer tends to be closely related to their emotional state. One essay can be a call for some awful eugenicist nightmare or benevolent mutual love... depending on the readers' mindset and which threads they stretch to their "logical" conclusions.

Post reply on HN