> Yes, it matters whether you are owning your words.
Well, clearly, superficial things to the actual content of the discussion like who I am, matters to you. A blanket statement that "it matters," is too reductive.
> This discussion is about how we structure society to serve its members.
Agreed.
>It has a long history of bigots cloaking their bigotry in a zillion ways. It is rife with people putting on masks -- from white hoods to anime avatars -- as a way of manipulating the discourse and avoiding social accountability for their attempts at social change.
Social accountability? You'll have to define this and why this is important in a discussion.
I find it interesting that you are equating an anonymous discussion about how to best serve society to white supremacists running around assaulting and killing people. Rather an extreme jump.
>If you want to be taken seriously -- certainly by me, probably by anybody -- then step up. Otherwise you're indistinguishable to me from the thousand other people I've dealt with who are happy to support self-serving sexism and racism from the shadows.
Interesting. You still cling to this belief that I'm supporting "self-serving sexism and racism" without specifics and not rebutting anything I've said. I'm starting to think you are currently incapable of being nuanced in thought. I hope this changes for you.
I don't have to define anything. I don't have to rebut anything. Somebody who is putting on a hood to discuss their opinions is the one who has to earn a response.
The norms of academic debate are decent ones, but they evolved in a very particular context, one where people committed to a lifetime of study and public service to earn their right to participate. You have done nothing here to earn similar consideration.
>I don't have to define anything. I don't have to rebut anything.
Certainly not. The request for a definition was meant to imply I can’t talk to the claim about “social accountability,” not knowing your definition. Unfortunately, you not rebutting anything just appears like you can’t, not that you won’t. You are definitely practicing what you preach; You are letting emotion ruin a conversation. In fact, it smacks of a tactic my 4 year-old daughter would use.
> Somebody who is putting on a hood to discuss their opinions is the one who has to earn a response.
I find it amusing that you use these “powerful” historical symbols to conjure up condemnation and emotion, when they have very little to do with anything I’ve discussed. It must be an easy life when you just dismiss things without observing or thinking about them. I find this is the most common feature among leftists and rightists and is predominantly why you guys are unable to come to an agreement on anything. Truly a spectacle.
>The norms of academic debate are decent ones, but they evolved in a very particular context, one where people committed to a lifetime of study and public service to earn their right to participate. You have done nothing here to earn similar consideration.
This is a website dedicated for people to “... make thoughtful comments. Thoughtful in both senses: civil and substantial.” This isn’t a place of academia, but the principles behind having a good discussion remain, regardless of the context.
I’m sure you don’t decry the use of pseudonyms when women in the past used them so that the quality of their work wasn’t judged by their gender. I find it funny you can’t abstract that same concept to now. It almost seems like you desire to know who I am, so you can place me in a box like the many misogynists did to those women in the past. Seems to me, perhaps you are the new form of racist/sexist.
Lastly, people don’t necessarily have to devote a lifetime of study to be cited in the academic community. That comes with the merit of the research. There are many people who dedicate their life to academia, but are cited very little due to quality of their research.
I was hoping to actually have a discussion where we could each learn something from the other, but you make this impossible. You could have reached a moderate, but instead you alienated me. Really, all you did was prove one of the points I made in the beginning, that emotion is the heighth of irrationality and shuts down conversation.
> Ah, the brand new account created just to push against an antisexist position suddenly has well-developed opinions on the history and the purpose of this website. What a surprise!
I copy and pasted the intent from the welcome tab. "Well-developed?" It took me about 30 seconds.
I've just found out about y-combinator from a coworker fairly recently. I'm looking forward to contributing more, since I am in the technical industry. I hope my future interactions are more interesting and with significantly less assumptions about people and their intents. Speaking of which, instead of making assumptions, you could just ask people questions... but I guess that is too difficult.
> Self-proclaimed "moderates" in hoods are a dime a dozen. If you aren't going to take your words seriously enough to take the minimal step of owning them, there's no reason I should. I can get poorly argued pro-sexist waffle anywhere.
I lean "right" and "left" depending on the issue and your definitions for "right" and "left." Most of the time, my beliefs are rather balanced and not really "right" or "left," but a mixture of both. I don't know what else moderate could mean.
I don't know why you feel "owning my words" matters in a discussion, as you won't discuss it. You've simply thrown out the word "social accountability" without a definition.
Well, clearly, superficial things to the actual content of the discussion like who I am, matters to you. A blanket statement that "it matters," is too reductive.
> This discussion is about how we structure society to serve its members.
Agreed.
>It has a long history of bigots cloaking their bigotry in a zillion ways. It is rife with people putting on masks -- from white hoods to anime avatars -- as a way of manipulating the discourse and avoiding social accountability for their attempts at social change.
Social accountability? You'll have to define this and why this is important in a discussion.
I find it interesting that you are equating an anonymous discussion about how to best serve society to white supremacists running around assaulting and killing people. Rather an extreme jump.
>If you want to be taken seriously -- certainly by me, probably by anybody -- then step up. Otherwise you're indistinguishable to me from the thousand other people I've dealt with who are happy to support self-serving sexism and racism from the shadows.
Interesting. You still cling to this belief that I'm supporting "self-serving sexism and racism" without specifics and not rebutting anything I've said. I'm starting to think you are currently incapable of being nuanced in thought. I hope this changes for you.
I agree, I think we are done.