How can we have a proper debate when we no longer speak the same language? • Hacker News Board

Re: How can we have a proper debate when we no longer speak the same language?

#51

Post by JellyBeanThief » Fri, Sep 15, 2023, 5:20 AM UTC

itiro wrote: post #27

system7rocks wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Constructive inquiry is different than the whine Dawkins is discussing.

Then Dawkins needs to get off Twitter, because it will never give him what he wants. He hasn't found a problem in society, he's found a problem on Twitter. As it stands, he's yelling at the ceiling because it's blocking his view of the sky. He needs to go outside.

Re: How can we have a proper debate when we no longer speak the same language?

#52

Post by vernon99 » Fri, Sep 15, 2023, 5:22 AM UTC

h11h wrote: post #47

marcod wrote: post #33

I agree with a bunch of what's said at the beginning of this. Dialog is the way, cancelling is not. But then he started to lose me: > the biological fact that our sex is determined at conception by an X or a Y sperm. Ever heard of people who are intersex? Given the diversity of the human condition that some people are born feeling not like the sex of their body at birth does not seem far-fetched to me. > What I didn’…

I find it frustrating when people claim to be upholding science but then make simple, unscientific claims that suggest they actually have the minds of Greek philosophers. Some women do have penises. Some men have XX chromosomes. Some women have XY chromosomes. Some people have XX and XY chromosomes. Science tells us that. This has nothing to do with transgender people. But it does suggest "sex" might not be as simple…

The problem is that people use very (like VERY) rare edge cases to build a whole framework based on it and bully the rest. Typical tyranny of the minority.

Re: How can we have a proper debate when we no longer speak the same language?

#53

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Sep 15, 2023, 5:22 AM UTC

klyrs wrote: post #48

ryandv wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's so curious that Dawkins, of all people, seems to be complaining that unorthodox thought -- that is to say, a rejection of traditional religious doctrine -- is expressible in the English language. That's not what he's "complaining" about at all. In fact, quite the opposite - that certain political and/or religious groups are _making it impossible_ to express unorthodox opinions that run counter to their dogma a…

What religion do you refer to? Is it a major one? When you say catechism do you literally mean doctrine in the form of question-and-response dialogue that is memorized by adherents? Traditionally, "orthodoxy" refers to doctrine that is either religious tradition or generally accepted. But the acceptance of transgender people is still hotly contested worldwide, and a small minority of humans live in jurisdictions wher…

[deleted]

Re: How can we have a proper debate when we no longer speak the same language?

#54

Post by ryandv » Fri, Sep 15, 2023, 5:24 AM UTC

klyrs wrote: post #48

ryandv wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's so curious that Dawkins, of all people, seems to be complaining that unorthodox thought -- that is to say, a rejection of traditional religious doctrine -- is expressible in the English language. That's not what he's "complaining" about at all. In fact, quite the opposite - that certain political and/or religious groups are _making it impossible_ to express unorthodox opinions that run counter to their dogma a…

What religion do you refer to? Is it a major one? When you say catechism do you literally mean doctrine in the form of question-and-response dialogue that is memorized by adherents? Traditionally, "orthodoxy" refers to doctrine that is either religious tradition or generally accepted. But the acceptance of transgender people is still hotly contested worldwide, and a small minority of humans live in jurisdictions wher…

It can be argued, and has been upthread in the top-voted comment at time of writing, that "the dynamics of the current 'cancel culture' or whatever resemble those of the traditional religious institutions Dawkins has previously critiqued."

You can choose to accept or refuse this proposition as you will; taking it as granted, it seems proper to invoke "orthodoxy" in its literal sense of "doctrine that is generally accepted," and catechism in its original sense derived 'from Greek katēkhismos, from katēkhizein "teach orally, instruct by word of mouth"'. [0]

What is generally accepted is dependent on time, location, and culture. Consider that this submission was immediately flagged within less than an hour of its posting, implying that this article is not generally accepted within the bounds of whatever time, location, and culture we are inhabiting when we post here.

[0] https://www.etymonline.com/word/catechism

Re: How can we have a proper debate when we no longer speak the same language?

#55

Post by blubbity » Fri, Sep 15, 2023, 5:35 AM UTC

operatingthetan wrote: post #44

stakhanov wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jordan Peterson has some interesting thoughts on how the psychology behind environmentalism, wokism, social justice warriordom etc. has a lot of overlap with the psychology behind religion. And when he says that, that's not a shallow dismissal of something he disapproves of, because he's actually pro-religion. The problem is the fact that people who hold these viewpoints see religious people as their enemy, so they'r…

>The problem is the fact that people who hold these viewpoints see religious people as their enemy, so they're weirdly blind to how they themselves are religious. And it's a young and immature religion that hasn't yet been through the formative historical chapter of the Spanish Inquisition, the witch hunts etc., and the reckoning that followed. History will repeat itself. First this requires accepting an inaccurate d…

How do you define religion? Is Shinto a religion? What about Confucianism? Do you believe that religions need a centralized governing body? Do religions require community? What is an accurate definition of religion that isn’t immediately fraught with counter-examples?

Re: How can we have a proper debate when we no longer speak the same language?

#56

Post by itiro » Fri, Sep 15, 2023, 5:48 AM UTC

JellyBeanThief wrote: post #50

itiro wrote: post #16

Earlier 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.

Only when you take the quote out of context. For the majority of the article he focuses on gender. And in the very same paragraph as that quote comes from he invokes J.K. Rowling. It is entirely reasonable to assume that transgender people are "the oppressed minority" he's specifically talking about.

It’s reasonable to assume otherwise.

My takeaway is it reads like a scientific publication; here’s authors premise, and author walks through an example of what they mean.

The title and subtitle are generic enough to apply to any of the tribal bubbles bleating online about a sense of persecution; Gurner and the CEO class, right wingers, politicians.

Hallucinations of persecution are not just coming from the trans community. It’s just easier to write a coherent article using one example.

Re: How can we have a proper debate when we no longer speak the same language?

#57

Post by operatingthetan » Fri, Sep 15, 2023, 5:50 AM UTC

blubbity wrote: post #55

operatingthetan wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The problem is the fact that people who hold these viewpoints see religious people as their enemy, so they're weirdly blind to how they themselves are religious. And it's a young and immature religion that hasn't yet been through the formative historical chapter of the Spanish Inquisition, the witch hunts etc., and the reckoning that followed. History will repeat itself. First this requires accepting an inaccurate d…

How do you define religion? Is Shinto a religion? What about Confucianism? Do you believe that religions need a centralized governing body? Do religions require community? What is an accurate definition of religion that isn’t immediately fraught with counter-examples?

Neither of your examples are even close to being as abstract as 'wokeism.' At least those examples demonstrate something that could go either way, versus something that is clearly defined. E.g. Toyota Tacoma lovers are not a religion, Christianity is. You're pretty close to a 'what do words mean anyway?' type argument which I would struggle to classify as good faith.

It is odd that the only people I've ever encountered who thought secularists were religious were Christians though. A contradiction if you actually believe in definitions.

Re: How can we have a proper debate when we no longer speak the same language?

#58

Post by klyrs » Fri, Sep 15, 2023, 6:04 AM UTC

ryandv wrote: post #54

klyrs wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What religion do you refer to? Is it a major one? When you say catechism do you literally mean doctrine in the form of question-and-response dialogue that is memorized by adherents? Traditionally, "orthodoxy" refers to doctrine that is either religious tradition or generally accepted. But the acceptance of transgender people is still hotly contested worldwide, and a small minority of humans live in jurisdictions wher…

It can be argued, and has been upthread in the top-voted comment at time of writing, that "the dynamics of the current 'cancel culture' or whatever resemble those of the traditional religious institutions Dawkins has previously critiqued." You can choose to accept or refuse this proposition as you will; taking it as granted, it seems proper to invoke "orthodoxy" in its literal sense of "doctrine that is generally acc…

What is cancel culture and how does Budweiser fit into that picture? For what it's worth, I do not accept that cancel culture is a religion. As far as I can tell, it's a label that regressives have applied to a set of behaviours exhibited by both progressives and regressives, but is only used to refer to those behaviours when exhibited by progressives.

> Consider that this submission was immediately flagged within less than an hour of its posting, implying that this article is not generally accepted within the bounds of whatever time, location, and culture we are inhabiting when we post here.

Do the science: post a pro-transgender thinkpiece, and see how quickly it gets flagged (or more likely, how few upvotes it gets). The topic is divisive -- and despite guidelines to the contrary, we as a community aren't great at maintaining a posture of curiosity, so it gets flagged every time it comes up.

Re: How can we have a proper debate when we no longer speak the same language?

#59

Post by blubbity » Fri, Sep 15, 2023, 6:06 AM UTC

operatingthetan wrote: post #57

blubbity wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you define religion? Is Shinto a religion? What about Confucianism? Do you believe that religions need a centralized governing body? Do religions require community? What is an accurate definition of religion that isn’t immediately fraught with counter-examples?

Neither of your examples are even close to being as abstract as 'wokeism.' At least those examples demonstrate something that could go either way, versus something that is clearly defined. E.g. Toyota Tacoma lovers are not a religion, Christianity is. You're pretty close to a 'what do words mean anyway?' type argument which I would struggle to classify as good faith. It is odd that the only people I've ever encounter…

I apologize for not coming across as being in good faith. I’m just saying that religion takes many varied forms, and it might be within the realm of possibility to use duck typing when thinking about them.

My original point still stands though, not as a matter of combating your viewpoint, but just as an observation, that I bet even the most seemingly iron-clad definition of religion will still have lots of weird and unexpected edge cases.

Re: How can we have a proper debate when we no longer speak the same language?

#60

Post by itiro » Fri, Sep 15, 2023, 6:07 AM UTC

JellyBeanThief wrote: post #51

itiro wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Constructive inquiry is different than the whine Dawkins is discussing. Then Dawkins needs to get off Twitter, because it will never give him what he wants. He hasn't found a problem in society, he's found a problem on Twitter. As it stands, he's yelling at the ceiling because it's blocking his view of the sky. He needs to go outside.

You made a grammatically correct point but I’m not sure it’s logically sound.

Human Twitter posters are members of society. How is it possible to wave off Twitter as not a problem in society when Twitter users exist as part of society?