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?

#61

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

blubbity wrote: post #59

operatingthetan wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>that I bet even the most seemingly iron-clad definition of religion will still have lots of weird and unexpected edge cases.

I'm sure there are plenty of edge cases, but this looks like a red herring to me. The OP in question doesn't actually believe people worship wokeism, view it as god, ultimate reality, divinity, or whatever. Their use was purely pejorative and dismissive in nature.

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

#62

Post by friend_and_foe » Fri, Sep 15, 2023, 6:17 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…

The author of the article that you're discussing in this thread is a counterexample to the only people you've encountered who think secularists were religious (as am I). The man is one of the top 3 candidates for the quintessential secularist.

Toyota Tacoma lovers aren't a religion, we agree on that. What about believing that you must kill a sizeable portion of the human population to save the mother earth? Could that be characterized as a religious view? Why or why not? What about the idea that a man can be a woman if he wills it so, and that those who don't agree are ~~blasphemers~~ bigots? Could that be characterized as a religious view? Why or why not?

In addition, what do these two statements have to do with secularism?

100%, in good faith I'm asking you these questions and hoping for a clear and honest answer. You have a genuine opportunity to change my mind on this topic.

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

#63

Post by friend_and_foe » Fri, Sep 15, 2023, 6:21 AM UTC

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’…

To your first question, this is addressed in the interview.

To your second question, yes. To address your statement after that, peer pressure is hell on a little kid.

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

#64

Post by stakhanov » Fri, Sep 15, 2023, 6:24 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…

> Second it seems like you are shooting your own religious position in the foot by dismissing your opponent's view 'just religion' as well.

I have a ton of respect for religion, so when I characterize environmentalism, wokeism, and social justice warriordom as sharing characteristics with religion, that's actually not being dismissive at all, but quite the contrary. It implies that the respect I have for religion extends also to those belief systems. -- It strikes me as an internal contradiction that you characterize my position as religious, but also characterize it as a dismissal if I point out that my opponent's position shares characteristics with religion.

It seems, the only thing in what I wrote that could have given offence is that I picked those specific words in the first place. This is similar to how, when you pick the word "terrorist" over "freedom fighter", you've already identified yourself with the political camp that opposes them.

Interestingly, I chose those words precisely because I thought they had greater specificity than alternatives that came to mind (like "liberal" or "left").

I also think it's quite interesting that you seem to think that a concept like "Christian" is specific, while "wokeism" is not. After all the spectrum of different Christian beliefs, number of different social groupings underneath the Christian umbrella, and internal heterogeneity of beliefs within those groups is so great, that, literally, wars have been fought over that.

Another reason I picked those words was because I sincerely don't want to oppose "the left". In fact, the political grouping that historically most closely resembled the beliefs I still hold was the political left in Europe, prior to the financial crisis of 2008. With the tectonic shifts in the political landscape since then, and the likelihood that Americans would misunderstand what I mean by "left", I wanted to avoid that word.

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

#65

Post by blubbity » Fri, Sep 15, 2023, 6:27 AM UTC

operatingthetan wrote: post #61

blubbity wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>that I bet even the most seemingly iron-clad definition of religion will still have lots of weird and unexpected edge cases. I'm sure there are plenty of edge cases, but this looks like a red herring to me. The OP in question doesn't actually believe people worship wokeism, view it as god, ultimate reality, divinity, or whatever. Their use was purely pejorative and dismissive in nature.

I think I understand your reasoning better now. I didn’t interpret OP as being purely dismissive or pejorative, but I see how you did. From your viewpoint it makes total sense that it’s wrong to compare “wokeism” to religion because “wokeism” clearly isn’t a religion! Seems obvious when stated that way.

I was originally thinking the OP meant something like, “hey I’ve heard this quacking noise somewhere before… what could this be…?”

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

#66

Post by operatingthetan » Fri, Sep 15, 2023, 6:30 AM UTC

friend_and_foe wrote: post #62

operatingthetan wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The author of the article that you're discussing in this thread is a counterexample to the only people you've encountered who think secularists were religious (as am I). The man is one of the top 3 candidates for the quintessential secularist. Toyota Tacoma lovers aren't a religion, we agree on that. What about believing that you must kill a sizeable portion of the human population to save the mother earth? Could tha…

> ~~blasphemers~~ bigots?

>100%, in good faith I'm asking you these questions and hoping for a clear and honest answer.

This does not appear to be the case. Why not make your own argument instead of asking leading questions?

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

#67

Post by friend_and_foe » Fri, Sep 15, 2023, 6:31 AM UTC

JellyBeanThief wrote: post #46

The fundamental problem Dawkins is struggling with is that he is asking for reasoned disagreement on Twitter, which is well-known for a desert of reason. If he truly desires thoughtful discussion, he needs to do it with real people in the real world. And that's so obvious that I begin to wonder if he's sincere, or if he's just stirring up shit to capture people's attention.

This problem goes beyond Twitter. You simply can't have a reasoned discussion on this topic, anywhere.

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

#68

Post by friend_and_foe » Fri, Sep 15, 2023, 6:40 AM UTC

operatingthetan wrote: post #66

friend_and_foe wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author of the article that you're discussing in this thread is a counterexample to the only people you've encountered who think secularists were religious (as am I). The man is one of the top 3 candidates for the quintessential secularist. Toyota Tacoma lovers aren't a religion, we agree on that. What about believing that you must kill a sizeable portion of the human population to save the mother earth? Could tha…

> ~~blasphemers~~ bigots? >100%, in good faith I'm asking you these questions and hoping for a clear and honest answer. This does not appear to be the case. Why not make your own argument instead of asking leading questions?

I was trying to draw a comparison in my question so that you could see the similarity, from my point of view.

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

#69

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Sep 15, 2023, 6:41 AM UTC

stakhanov wrote: post #64

operatingthetan wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Second it seems like you are shooting your own religious position in the foot by dismissing your opponent's view 'just religion' as well. I have a ton of respect for religion, so when I characterize environmentalism, wokeism, and social justice warriordom as sharing characteristics with religion, that's actually not being dismissive at all, but quite the contrary. It implies that the respect I have for religion ext…

[deleted]

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

#70

Post by operatingthetan » Fri, Sep 15, 2023, 6:43 AM UTC

stakhanov wrote: post #64

operatingthetan wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Second it seems like you are shooting your own religious position in the foot by dismissing your opponent's view 'just religion' as well. I have a ton of respect for religion, so when I characterize environmentalism, wokeism, and social justice warriordom as sharing characteristics with religion, that's actually not being dismissive at all, but quite the contrary. It implies that the respect I have for religion ext…

>It strikes me as an internal contradiction that you characterize my position as religious, but also characterize it as a dismissal if I point out that my opponent's position shares characteristics with religion.

Your argument was clearly pro-religion. Are not not religious? If you are, this falls flat. It was a dismissal because you straight called them "young and immature" and suggested a reckoning was coming. Come on... that's not being careful with your words whatsoever. Nor is it "respectful." Truly baffling.

>After all the spectrum of different Christian beliefs, number of different social groupings underneath the Christian umbrella, and internal heterogeneity of beliefs within those groups is so great, that, literally, wars have been fought over that.

You're talking about two different things here. Sets of beliefs versus classifications. I have no doubt if you asked people on the street in the US if Christianity was a religion 9/10 or better would say it was. This is not a serious argument, it's throwing shade only your in-group would understand.