You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Sniffnoy comments on A Rationalist's Account of Objectification? - Less Wrong Discussion

43 Post author: lukeprog 19 March 2011 11:10PM

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

Comments (325)

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

Comment author: Sniffnoy 12 March 2013 05:57:42AM 0 points [-]

Hold off on proposing solutions.

I'm not sure where you got the idea I was proposing a solution. I'm just pointing out that I think the current terminology is not accurate in terms of mechanism, and suggesting that we use terminology that better reflects the underlying mechanism (if I'm correct that it does not). Admittedly, that is a question in itself -- and in that sense I suppose I am proposing a solution to that particular subproblem -- but I make no claim that better terminology will somehow solve the ultimate problems feminism fights. Rather I'm suggesting we be clear on what's going on first (and use terminology that reflects that); that suggests far away from proposing solutions.

Insisting that the problem be talked about in one particular vocabulary — that your language is "accurate" and the other person's language "sacrifices accuracy" — doesn't sound like the sort of thing that would help solve problems of this sort.

I'm not really sure what to make of this statement. Some terminology is better than other terminology. Either what I'm suggesting more accurately reflects the situation, or it doesn't. Maybe I'm right or maybe I'm wrong, but that the question of which terminology is better is a question that can be discussed is something that should be uncontroversial.