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

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

richarddawkins.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 130 posts

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

#71

Post by operatingthetan »

friend_and_foe wrote: post #68
operatingthetan wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ~~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.

Since you chose not to make an argument I'll leave you with this: having beliefs doesn't mean you have religion. I have an extreme belief that I have a lovely cat. It's not my religion.

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

#72

Post by operatingthetan »

blubbity wrote: post #65
operatingthetan wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 c…

Yeah I mean we're talking about definition 1 versus definition 2 (or whatever) in the dictionary. They are using them interchangeably and then suggesting they aren't.

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

#73

Post by stakhanov »

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.

> 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.

Are you referring to me? See sibling comment. It was not pejorative. And I do think wokeism is a form of worship.

The sibling comment from "friend_and_foe" seems to reflect the point I was trying to make:

> 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?

So, to add some meat to the bone here, let's start with Wikipedia's definition of religion:

"Religion is a range of social-cultural systems, including designated behaviors and practices, morals, beliefs, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that generally relate humanity to supernatural, transcendental, and spiritual elements"

For example, the way some gender theorists would define "gender" as opposed to "sex" makes it look a lot like "gender" is the abstraction that corresponds to "sex" but on the transcendental plane. It is then connected with a social-cultural system that includes behaviours, practices, morals, beliefs, worldviews, texts, [ not sure about sanctified places; can't think of any ] prophecies, ethics, and organizations.

Many environmentalists seem to me to have a quintessentially pessimistic view of man and his role in the universe, reflected in the belief that some of them have that the planet would be better off with fewer humans on it. This reminds me a lot of the chatholic doctrine of "original sin". To escape from original sin, man must exhibit certain behaviours, take part in certain practices, adopt certain morals, beliefs, and worldsviews, be part of certain organizations, etc.

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

#74

Post by operatingthetan »

stakhanov wrote: post #73
operatingthetan wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

> 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. Are you referring to me? See sibling comment. It was not pejorative. And I do think wokeism is a form of worship. The sibling comment from "friend_and_foe" seems to reflect the point I was trying to make: > What about believing that yo…

>For example, the way some gender theorists would define "gender" as opposed to "sex" makes it look a lot like "gender" is the abstraction that corresponds to "sex" but on the transcendental plane.

That's not their view, and the way you are modifying definitions here means participating in any discussions of philosophy makes you religious, which is absurd.

Please note it's and not or.

>supernatural, transcendental, and spiritual elements"

>This reminds me a lot of the chatholic doctrine of "original sin". To escape from original sin, man must exhibit certain behaviours, take part in certain practices, adopt certain morals, beliefs, and worldsviews, be part of certain organizations, etc.

Seems a bit too much magical thinking. If I have a dirty house, does cleaning it not solve the problem? Nobody actually believes that they need to be righteous or do rituals to clean up the planet. Again you have a tendency to mischaracterize.

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

#75

Post by system7rocks »

fallingknife wrote: post #40
wheresmyshadow wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're completely right, this couldn't be any more ironic. Article on how people can't debate got flagged with lots of comments proving the point, ah...

Just had an idea. The power of a flagging should be scaled by the inverse of how often the flagging user uses flags.

I'd love to engage with others about this. Richard Dawkins has not done himself any favors as being open to this conversation. There is so much to learn and appreciate about the diversity within humanity, including the concept of sexuality and gender. That would be a great conversation, and yet Dawkins and others just complain but don't open it up.

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

#76

Post by ghink »

fsargent wrote: post #9

> But shouldn’t we just indulge the harmless whims of an oppressed minority? Maybe, were it not for a strain of aggressive bossiness which insists, not so very harmlessly and not sounding very oppressed, that the rest of us must humour those whims and join in. Goodness, what a whine. If you’re not a person who is directly confronted with this, why are you throwing yourself into this debate? The only reason to enforce…

That's like saying to an atheist that they have to personally accept any of the harmless whims of the religious.

Like, a quick prayer won't hurt you if you don't really believe in it, will it? Just do it to be polite. Hands together, eyes closed, done. What's the problem?

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

#77

Post by system7rocks »

exodust wrote: post #30
system7rocks wrote: post #7

Has 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…

If the police showed up because of a satirical tweet, I would laugh. As should he. Come on. Have the police showed up to Richard Dawkins' home? No.

He didn't describe any legal action. Youtube is a private company. Youtube is owned by a trash company. I don't get it.

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

#78

Post by system7rocks »

friend_and_foe wrote: post #67
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.

Again, I disagree. Trans folks are not unreasoned. They are open to the immense challenging reality that is their identity. It's different. Go in with humility. Listen. Learn. Ask questions. Be open. All will be well.

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

#79

Post by pointlessone »

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…

According to Wikipedia 1.7% is the upper bound of all intersex variations in the population. It is important to acknowledge and accommodate these people. However their existence more often used as a weapon in discourse on adjacent topics like gender and identity but not necessarily specifically intersex.

As an example, about 9% of population is left-handed. When was the last time someone mentioned violence when talking about handedness?

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

#80

Post by ghink »

klyrs wrote: post #36

> 1984’s Appendix lays out the principles of Newspeak, the nascent language of Orwell’s dark dystopia. Newspeak was designed to make unorthodox thoughts impossible. There would be no words to express them. > The Times (January 18) reported that “a transgender woman has denied raping two women with her penis”. If “with her penis” is not quite 2+2= 5, it’s getting close. 2+2= 4.5? It's so curious that Dawkins, of all p…

In the case he cites, The Times was obliged to use that wording because of guidance from the press regulator.

Which many people, like Dawkins, complained about, but, on the other hand, complying with this guidance works out well in the long run because it highlights the absurdity of ideas like: a man is a woman if he says he's a woman.

Post reply on HN