Posted: 2017-12-07 09:37
I agree with everything you 8767 ve said except your use of the word 8775 feminists 8776 . If you would use the term 8775 third-wave feminists 8776 or 8775 choice feminists 8776 (operationally anti-feminists), I 8767 d be with you 655%. Radical feminists . feminists who ground their understanding of a social movement for women 8767 s human rights to health safety and autonomy are attacked as viscously and frequently by the same groups that turned on Tuvel for not toeing the party line.
Far from being an unfair allegation, my objection to your position is founded in an analysis you still have not engaged. Identifying conservatives as morally depraved and irrational without offering any evidence beyond your personal testimony is the same sort of evasive behavior you are critical of conservatives as a group (allegedly) engaging in. That is not an assumption. It is borne out of by your repeated statements and behavior. Assuming an air of surprise ( 8775 breathtaking 8776 , really?) is no more responsive to my criticism of your stance than your strawman of my argument was. Nor is your alarmism (nihilism, and everyone dies!) any more substantiated than your original generalizations. If anything, it 8767 s more ridiculous conservatives aren 8767 t even adjacent to nihilism (which is a misconstrued, populist dogwhistle).
You haven 8767 t actually answered my question about how trans people should be treated on your view. Should people insist on referring to them by old pronouns? What kind of bathrooms should they be allowed to use? Should they be allowed to transfer to women 8767 s or men 8767 s prison if they want to? Is using their old names necessary, not necessarily, but morally ok, or something someone shouldn 8767 t make a habit of doing, even if they think we should abolish gender? Is your position mostly about how gender should be described in academic analysis, or about how trans people should be treated in the public sphere?
This article describes an analogy drawn between an editor 8767 s critical response to the article and militant fundamentalism as 8775 joking 8776 if anyone is still concerned about civility and how we 8767 re treating those we disagree with. (I hope it 8767 s apparent I write this publicly, for whatever that 8767 s worth, and have seen more than enough problematic responses to both the controversy and its publicity to justify, in my opinion, the spirit of this article, if not the letter.)
No, because I could claim to be a little teapot, short and stout, and I 8767 d still be a woman, not a teapot (and everyone would recognise so even if they were pretending not to). Just an even battier woman than I already am, if I really thought I was a teapot, or was overly hung up on the idea. This is because a woman is something I actually am, not something I 8767 m just identifying wrongly as. This is not my concept of what the word 8766 woman 8767 means in isolation, arrived at alone, it 8767 s the one that has historically been and still is, almost always understood to mean an adult human female (and which definition I object to attempts to change as being offensive), because a general agreement on what words mean is how we humans manage to communicate with each other.
Stan, I 8767 m sorry but what you say is both laughable and sad in its stupidity. 8775 You 8767 re old, you can 8767 t enter the conversation. 8776 8775 You 8767 re white, blah blah. 8776 8775 Be an ally by shutting up. 8776 8775 You 8767 re privileged, we will not listen. 8776
If you had begun your remarks with, I will refuse to the end of my days to make any sense, 8776 the rest would have been consistent. Please, tell me you are not a philosopher. That would be depressing.
Political polarity is an obvious exhibition of that behaviorism. Grouping people together based on their (dis)affinity with your sociopolitical views is the first step. Then comes dehumanization of the out group through generalizations and stereotypes, which facilitates unsubstantiated attacks on their character as a group. The in-group, meanwhile, remains humanized and generally insulated from equitable
criticism (. your willingness to overlook equivalencies in behavior
between conservatives and liberals). But neither the grouping nor the stereotypes withstand reason, given the actual diversity of persons and perspectives as well as the complexity of circumstance (in fact, there is no such thing as 8775 conservatives 8776 or 8775 liberals 8776 , but that 8767 s getting beyond the immediate point).
Talking is not the same as listening that you group Trump voters into simplistic categories strongly suggests you 8767 re not doing the latter at all. That was precisely my point, and I 8767 m not going to elaborate on it again unless you actually respond to that analysis. Moreover, if most of your 8775 listening 8776 is happening on internet forums then your sample population is obviously skewed and uninformative.
More substantively, I don 8767 t think the problem is one of outrage, or outrage culture. After all, you seem fairly outraged at Tuvalu 8767 s treatment yourself. Instead, the issue seems to be what people do or don 8767 t do with their outrage. It used to be that people used their outrage to write responses and critiques of those they were outraged at. Nowadays, people seek the removal of whatever caused their outrage. You see this here but also in campus culture more generally. From what I can tell, this is reflects a generational difference millennials seem to want anything that disturbs or outrages them to cease to exist, and some non-millennial professors pander to this, wanting to be seen as woke or something. It 8767 s all very troubling and ultimately antithetical to the philosophic enterprise.
That 8767 s a very atypical position, but radical feminism ought to mean having the freedom to consider such, even if it ends up simply as part of an ongoing process of aiming at thinking outside the box of patriarchy (which may include misses, and evolving ideas, as well as hits). The third sentence (so, hardly buried deep in the article, but recognised by the writer as something that needs stating right away) establishes it 8767 s atypical and that the writer is aware of that, and the 8766 ok? 8767 in the very title of the article does likewise. You 8767 re clearly being disingenuous in trying to imply it 8767 s a prevalent view by stating 8766 it 8767 s certainly not alone in it 8767 s point of view 8767 . There is also disagreement from a commentator (and there are few individual commentators, so gain, hardly a commonly-agreed with view), and appears to have been more that was not posted (though that may admittedly also have resulted from the article being linked elsewhere). If you expect horrified disavowal, you won 8767 t get it.
Identity politics have ruined the left, focusing on small minorities of people 8767 s internal feeling, preventing rational discourse, denying universal points of view and any notion of objective truth (much like their friends, the alt-right). It 8767 s time to abandon it, let that demon die of starvation, it has done us so much damage. If feminism is this, everyone, most especially woman better hope philosophy rejects it. If you can 8767 t take trigger words, you need medication, encouragement to face your fears but not a platform. Sheesh. It is SUCH a joke.
Obviously the academic left is full of self-serving neurotic hypocrites. Why would you expect anything else to come from the heinous institution that 8767 s American academia? And the gleeful calls from conservatives to 8775 level the playing field 8776 and destroy all efforts to help minority groups are a demented, outsized reaction to the identity masturbation party on the left. Conservatives have been making the Dolezal/Jenner point since the Dolezal shitfest got press and instead of working with this logic, progressives start making hysterical claims about prioritizing different aspects of identity.
The concept of 8775 don 8767 t say vicious things 8776 is a fine theory. In practice, as we have discovered over the last 65-75 years, if you let the hearer/reader decide what is vicious, suddenly, everything that everyone says is vicious. This is what our ancestors knew that we have mostly forgotten that once you embrace the idea that it is legitimate for offensive speech to be constrained by force, the free-thinking world descends into endless multilateral outrage.
You seem to not understand how reason and argument work. You say that 8775 this couldn 8767 t happen in academia 8776 but are unable to offer any reason or argument why that is the case. Meanwhile, there is no question that human nature is such that people often say things publicly that they don 8767 t mean and disavow privately. That is not exactly something new or atypical. Why academia is different and somehow immune from human nature is something you can 8767 t really explain and worse don 8767 t even understand why you would have to explain.
Just as a side note: I would like to know if those claiming to have PTSD over the publication of this article are self-diagnosed or are actually receiving treatment from the psychiatric profession. I have PTSD and these claims I find somewhat unbelievable. PTSD sufferer is decidedly not one of those groups you can decide you belong to, just like being a diabetic is not either. It 8767 s a legitimate psychiatric disorder that requires diagnosis and treatment. Can anyone who is making these claims let me know if they have been diagnosed with PTSD by a psychiatrist because of the publication of this article please?
In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable – what then?
I regard none of your excuses for Trump supporters as reasonable, and they hardly discount my point. If you say they lacked understanding of facts, they fall neatly into my 8766 thick/badly educated 8767 category (note again, this does not assign personal blame. It does mean they 8767 re not worth listening to, as per my initial point). For those who have internet access, access to political information is not highly limited.
The vast majority of comments on the major mainstream philosophy blogs were on Tuvel 8767 s side and condemned the call for retraction as a threat to free discourse in academia. I have a doctorate in philosophy and I still have only heard of about 7 of the hundreds of people who signed the retraction petition (and yes, I read all the signatures as of the time I looked at it.) There 8767 s no evidence that the majority even are in philosophy, or that the majority are academics rather than students.
Help me out here as I 8767 m honestly interested in an answer. My only encounters with 8775 radfems 8776 come from a couple years back when I happened upon an article on Jezabel about the belief that ALL PIV (penis in vagina) sex is ALL of it and any woman that thinks otherwise has been brainwashed. I followed the link, read through the comments there, and was somewhat horrified at what I saw there. I typically have a thick skin for these sorts of things, but the PIV thing was simply a bridge too far.
Your comment is otherwise sensible, even though I strongly disagree with you about Trump support, but why this superstitious reverence for 8766 what the founders intended 8767 ? To non-Americans like me this seems super odd, even though there were obviously many admirable things about the Founders (as well as some not-so-admirable ones obviously-but most of the things *distinctive* of them, relative to other western elites at the time were admirable.) Why think that what the founders intended back in a completely different world particularly tracks what would be good public policy in the US today?