= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
loqi comments on Is masochism necessary? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (143)
I do know this site very well, and I have to say the way the article refers to masochism got up my nose too. I think if we were going to discuss stuff like why straight people are straight, we'd take care that our audience didn't misunderstand our intent.
I'd hope we can spare some benefit of the doubt as whether or not someone's intent is bigoted and judgmental, rather than just slightly influenced in its phrasing by cultural norms (however unfair or misguided those happen to be), but I can see how it could be annoying.
I've got to say, I was reading the original post and rolling my eyes, but it looked more like "Someone so naively square as to compare sexual masochism to eating spicy food" than "Someone actively bigoted".
Note that one doesn't need to be actively bigoted in order to do harm. The vast majority of those who are slowing down the spread of rational thought aren't religious fundamentalists out to stop rationality; no, they're the completely innocent ones who unthinkingly pass on cached thoughts.
It's no different when it comes to attitudes concerning, say, BDSM. I don't for a moment think that Goetz was actively bigoted when he wrote that. That doesn't mean that he shouldn't have worded it differently. More generally... it's often dangerous to think "but (he isn't / I am not) bigoted", as if only active bigots could say harmful things. Once the harmfulness of what they're saying is pointed out to them, they automatically go on the defensive - after all, only bigots say bad things, and they're not a bigot, so the other person must simply be oversensitive.
This probably deserves a top-level post.
Yes. Exactly. This comment says everything I would have said, and probably more eloquently.
What exactly do you mean by 'saying harmful things'? How are they harmful? If I firmly believe that someone should be allowed to pursue any activity they wish to as long as it doesn't cause injury to any non-consenting individuals, how is it harmful if I continue to consider that behaviour unusual, or even continue to view it negatively?
I believe there's are implicit assumptions underlying the claim that speech is 'harmful' that you need to make more explicit if you are going to expand this into a top level post. You may find that not everyone shares your assumptions.
Well, the "Indeed, it's often dangerous..." wasn't referring to Goetz anymore, but was on a more general level (edited to make that clearer).
But anyway, by 'saying harmful things' I refer to saying things which propagate potentially close-minded attitudes which can do real harm to people. I'm by no means saying such speech should be banned - I am quite a strong advocate of freedom of speech, myself - but that doesn't mean it should be socially accepted, either.
For instance, if I read the comments below correctly, the original version of this post apparently said "socially acceptable behaviors" instead of "socially accepted behaviors". Saying that something "isn't socially acceptable" sounds pretty condemning. clarissethorn's criticism also has some merit. I don't really think that Goetz's post was very bad, but it did bring to mind the general phenomenon.
But yes, I will make the related assumptions more explicit if I get around expanding this. It's getting rather late here now, so I'm too tired to type up a much longer explanation right now.
I think a top level post would be useful. If less wrong turns out to be the sort of community where I have to worry about 'accepted' vs. 'acceptable' when posting for fear of hurting the feelings of someone on the Internet then it's not going to be a community I want to be a part of. That would be useful information.
IMO, Less Wrong should be a community that encourages you to worry about precise expression, which includes the distinction between 'accepted' and 'acceptable'.
Let me try and explain why I find the kind of discussion over the precise connotations of speech here frustrating.
It seems that people who strongly believe in the importance of eliminating implicit negative connotations in language are often coming from a position where they implicitly accept the premise that it is ok for society to make laws governing activities that individuals choose to partake in that do not impinge on the rights of third parties.
They see some activity that they wish to be permitted either being restricted or under threat of being restricted and they desire to influence the set of permitted activities to match their preferences. The proposed cure is to police language in order to influence the thoughts and preferences of others in a direction that increases acceptance of the favoured activity.
I see this as a mis-diagnosis of the problem. The thought police would not be necessary if we all agreed to allow people to conduct their lives as they choose without threat of interference. I suspect that at some level many of those seeking to control the use of language do so because they ultimately do want to restrict the choices of others and so must fight the battle to control the set of restricted behaviours rather than fighting to remove all restrictions.
What does any of that have to do with what I said?
FWIW, Nick pointed it out in a non-accusatory way, and I appreciate having it pointed out, and will be more careful about that particular distinction in the future.
You sound very confident that you have the right position about this; I'd be interested to know more about where that confidence springs from.
Opinion about the fact that I wouldn't want to be part of a community where that kind of self-censorship was necessary? I know that it winds me up/hits my buttons/irritates me enough that discussions become a negative emotional experience. While I have found much of value here there are other ways I can attempt to improve my rationality that have less negative expected emotional utility for me.
Right, but it's a negative emotional experience for me to open an article that describes me as a sexual pervert something like a chronic loser, don't you think?
Taking care to be polite to each other is not some foolish ritual of mundanes; it serves a real purpose in facilitating discussion. It isn't always the right thing, but it's the right side to err on.
By and large people take notable care over their words here in a variety of ways, and it makes the site a better place.
How would you rewrite the second sentence?
Combining the second and third sentences:
"Many associate the term masochism with sexuality, but there are plenty of masochistic, non-sexual behaviors:"
Is that really naively square? Yes it seems obvious that sexual masochism is much more psychologically complex than that, but I'd be surprised if whatever it is that makes spicy food enjoyable weren't usually a factor as well.
Well, simple way to test it. Just check out the prevalence of spicy food enjoyment among Ms versus the general population.
I agree that spicy food and some others (fiction? really?) don't seem to fit. I'm objecting to Clarisse characterizing it as "presenting a judgmental viewpoint".
It is a judgmental viewpoint. Maybe he didn't mean it that way, but that doesn't mean it's not a judgmental viewpoint.