Open thread, July 28 - August 3, 2014

polymathwannabe

If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.

Notes for future OT posters:

1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.

2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one.

3. Open Threads should be posted in Discussion, and not Main.

4. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.

If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.

Notes for future OT posters:

1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.

2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one.

3. Open Threads should be posted in Discussion, and not Main.

4. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.

Impressive.

In the linked article the author mentions that there are multiple definitions of racism and people often aren't clear about which one they use; and then decides to use the one without "..., but only when white people do it" as a default. And says that it is okay if white authors decide to write only white characters, but if they write also non-white characters they should describe their experiences realistically. (Then in the comments someone asks whether saying that every human being is racist doesn't render the word meaningless, and there is no outrage afterwards. Other people mention that calling someone racist is usually used just to silence or insult them.)

I am not sure whether this even should be called "social justice". It just seems like a common sense to me. (This specific article; I haven't read more from the same author yet.)

Somewhat related -- writing this comment I realized that I am kinda judging the sanity of the author by how much I agree with her. When I put it this way, it seems horrible. ("You are sane if and only if you agree with me.") But I admit it is a part of the algorithm I use. Is that a reason to worry? But then I remembered the parable that all correct maps of the same city are necessarily similar to each, although finding a set of similar maps does not guarantee their correctness (they could be copies of the same original wrong map). So, if you spend some time trying to make a map that reflects the territory better, and you believe you are sane enough, you should expect the maps of other sane people to be similar to yours. Of course this shouldn't be your only criterium. But, uhm, extraordinary maps require extraordinary evidence; or at least some evidence.

I'm glad you liked it.

Since I'd have to overcome a really strong ugh field to read it again, I'd like to check on whether my memory of it is correct-- the one thing I didn't like about it was Mohanraj saying (implying?) that if you behave decently you won't be attacked. She was making promises about people who aren't as rational as she is.

Why an ugh field? Those essays came out when racefail was going on, and came with the added info that it took Mohanraj two and a half weeks to write them, and (at least as I read it) I should feel really guilty that a wom... (read more)

7gjm12y

Perhaps social justice done right should just seem like common sense (to reasonable people). I mean, what's the alternative? Social injustice? It would be a pity to use the term "social justice" to describe only facepalming irrationality. I mean, you then get this No True Scotsman sort of thing (maybe we should call it No True Nazi or something) where you refuse to say that someone's engaged in "social justice" even though what they're doing is crusading against sexism, racism, patriarchy, etc., simply because no True Social Justice Warror would engage in rational debate or respond to disagreement with sensible engagement rather than outrage. (Minor vested interest disclosure: I happen to know some people who are both quite social-justice-y and quite rational, and I would find it unfortunate to be unable to say that on account of "social justice" and "rationality" getting gratuitously exclusive definitions.)

3Lumifer12y

That doesn't seem horrible to me. There are many ways of being insane, but one of them is having a very wrong map (and you can express the one of standard criteria for clinical-grade mental illness -- interferes with functioning in normal life -- as "your map is so wrong you can't traverse the territory well"). I think the critical difference here is whether you disagree about facts (which are, hopefully, empirically observable and statements about them falsifiable) or whether you disagree about values, opinions, and forecasts. Major disagreement about facts is a good reason to doubt someone's sanity, but about values and predictions is not.