Eliezer_Yudkowsky comments on Of Exclusionary Speech and Gender Politics - Less Wrong

62 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 21 July 2009 07:22AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (647)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: RobinZ 22 July 2009 06:59:20PM *  5 points [-]

You just need to know what makes you personally (not some hypothetical average woman) want to flee.

This assumes two things.

One: there being enough women available to identify the offputting behavior.

Two: there being no men capable of identifying the offputting behavior.

The first is false and the second offensive - and yes, offensive to me personally, as a black male social liberal. It's not the victim's job to fight unjust discrimination. It's everyone's.

Edit: As Eliezer Yudkowsky points out, "discrimination" is an unfairly loaded term in this context. I shouldn't have used it. To reword: offputting behavior can be recognized by more than just those it would make uncomfortable, and it is, in fact, everyone's responsibility to avoid it in their own writing and to point it out in others. (With the caveat, as thomblake and Jonathan_Graehl observed, that offensiveness should not be pointed out where it does not exist, and overzealous policing should be discouraged as well.)

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 23 July 2009 05:11:18AM 6 points [-]

But it's not about discrimination. It's about providing a non-gender-unfriendly environment. We are not assuming the speaker is guilty - of sexism, of deliberate intent, of anything. We are not on a crusade. We are just trying to avoid that sort of speech in the future.

Comment author: RobinZ 23 July 2009 12:18:53PM 0 points [-]

If you've got a better word than "discrimination" to describe the problem, let me know, I want to hear it.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 23 July 2009 08:03:11PM 5 points [-]

"obliviousness"

Comment author: RobinZ 23 July 2009 08:56:25PM 1 point [-]

That assumes innoc...dagnabbit, why am I arguing about vocabulary? You're right, I shouldn't phrase it to present all gender-unfriendly speech as intentional. I'll edit in a disclaimer.