[flagged]
[flagged]
How can we have a proper debate when we no longer speak the same language?
21–30 of 130 posts
Re: How can we have a proper debate when we no longer speak the same language?
#22Reading this, it struck me how the dynamics of the current 'cancel culture' or whatever resemble those of the traditional religious institutions Dawkins has previously critiqued. Both, at their extremes, exhibit an intolerance to differing viewpoints as a threat to their literal existence. Both can become insular, shutting out any deviation from the 'accepted' narrative, and this poses a real threat to free thought and inquiry.
Re: How can we have a proper debate when we no longer speak the same language?
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why did you invoke gender? The quote is generic enough to my reading it could mean any one of various mathematical minorities. Do we all join in with Trump flag waving caravans of F150s? They were a whiny minority recently.
The article is about gender.
No it’s about hypersensitive minority groups and uses one as an example.
Re: How can we have a proper debate when we no longer speak the same language?
#24I am disappointed by the absolute paucity of reasoned discourse in this comment thread so far. All I have witnessed are lazy dismissals and thought-terminating cliches [0] without anyone actually engaging with the substance of the article.
Recalling the HN guidelines:
> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
I expect Dawkins has run into quite a bit of the same mode of equivocation and redefinitions of terms he writes of, when he went around striking down anti-scientific Creationist arguments such as "evolution is just a theory." A Creationist would parrot this line, thinking that "evolution is just a guess." A scientist understands this to mean, "a falsifiable hypothesis verified through empirical evidence and experiment."
It's worth taking a look at what Frege had to say with respect to words, their meanings, and what they can refer to [1]:
> It might perhaps be said: Just as one man connects this idea, and another that idea, with the same word, so also one man can associate this sense and another that sense.
Hence the necessity for interlocutors to "come to terms" on what exactly they mean by stating their definitions clearly before there is any hope of rational discussion.
This is rapidly becoming more and more difficult, as old words with a long history of usage such as "gender" are being appropriated to mean, and refer to, things quite different from the original senses and references of those terms.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A...
Re: How can we have a proper debate when we no longer speak the same language?
#25Reading this, it struck me how the dynamics of the current 'cancel culture' or whatever resemble those of the traditional religious institutions Dawkins has previously critiqued. Both, at their extremes, exhibit an intolerance to differing viewpoints as a threat to their literal existence. Both can become insular, shutting out any deviation from the 'accepted' narrative, and this poses a real threat to free thought a…
It is ironic, and sad that this was so quickly flagged.
It may be that, given something like 80-90% of humans on earth follow such religious institutions, we as a species have some genetic factors that make us intolerant of differing viewpoints. I can imagine such genetic factors could have played a role in social cohesion early in human evolution.
Re: How can we have a proper debate when we no longer speak the same language?
#26Emotionally charged topics shouldn’t be avoided, but we should all strive to have rational and compassionate conversations about such things. I always like to introduce people to this rules of civil conversation during such exchanges. https://therulesofcivilconversation.org/ Equally helpful to maintain conversations that are positive is to check out own biases and fallacies: https://yourbias.is/ https://yourlogicalfa…
Gross that you were flagged for this. Sorry.
Edit: For the two people who read this, in this buried submission, in this buried comment, a quote humorously apropos from the article: "so hair-trigger is the hypersensitivity, a mere invitation to discuss something is enough to set it off."
Re: How can we have a proper debate when we no longer speak the same language?
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I just don't get this article. If I understand the article, people who don't "get this article" are the very sort he is describing. > Not criticize or complain about his dumb tweets? What in particular did he say that you find "dumb"?
Most tweets are dumb. They are a tweet. That website is a mess. I understand his article. He is bothered that he gets pushback and labeled all sorts of things because of what he writes. It happens. It's life. It's also not new. It's why so many religious/political people chose to create their own publications throughout history to not have to deal with editors/market forces. Is he incapable of stepping back and under…
Constructive inquiry is different than the whine Dawkins is discussing.
He’s saying what you said; people write things, fuck off if you don’t like what they write, trans people, right wing people, liberal people, HN people.
And it’s being spun here as if he doesn’t get the point we all just absorbed reading his article.
Very “you made this? I made this.” meme.
Re: How can we have a proper debate when we no longer speak the same language?
#28It's really a shame Dawkins hasn't dipped his toe into social epistemology. It's very clear that this is a grounding issue that's highlighting that different categories have different grounding rules and that within categories, individuals have different grounding rules. Furthermore, grounding rules have cultural-geofraphic territories and change over time.
It's how I can get a new job and call myself a Data Scientist, but as Rachel Dolezal is mentioned in the article, cannot alter her appearance and be Black. The categories are simply grounded in different things.
Ásta Kristjana Sveinsdóttir, does a phenomenal job at describing this principle in Categories We Live By. It's a plus that it's both fairly short and approachable.
Re: How can we have a proper debate when we no longer speak the same language?
#29I am disappointed by the absolute paucity of reasoned discourse in this comment thread so far. All I have witnessed are lazy dismissals and thought-terminating cliches [0] without anyone actually engaging with the substance of the article. Recalling the HN guidelines: > Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. I expect Dawkins has run into quite a bit of the same m…
> “Sarah Jane” Baker
Speaking of words, why would “Professor” Dawkins do that?
> This is rapidly becoming more and more difficult, as old words with a long history of usage such as "gender" are being appropriated to mean, and refer to, things quite different from the original senses and references of those terms.
Like "chaos" in physics, "master" in computing, or, as you point out, "theory" in science as a whole.
Wikipedia has John Money introducing a distinction between biological sex and gender identity in 1955, by the way.
Re: How can we have a proper debate when we no longer speak the same language?
#30Has Dawkins sat down with numerous trans people to listen to their stories and perspectives... and why his actions and words are offensive? Of course, offensive doesn't mean he has to pull back or go a different route. But sometimes, our choice of words causes us to have social repercussions. It certainly has me throughout my life. Often, I can repair those damaged relationships by listening, learning, and growing -…
> What does he want us to do?
Are you waiting to be told what to do? The article is asking whether we're approaching Orwellian times. If police turn up at your work because of a satirical tweet you wrote last night, maybe that's something to write about and be concerned about.
> Not criticize
I believe his problem is when criticism bares teeth and is delivered as legal action, or some kind of penalty or strike action, or drummed up hit pieces etc.