For example, see this subthread where multiple users discuss how spectator sports are “banal” and “pointless”.
I think a careful reading of that subthread shows that you’ve unfairly taken those comments out of context. Mass Driver’s point was that he/she didn’t want to take away people’s enjoyment of spectator sports, and Nancy Lebovitz was describing a hypothetical scenario where a person loses interest (“find out that spectator sports are pointless”), so that the label referred to that hypothetical person’s own hypothetical (future) opinion. And by “multiple users” you apparently meant just those two.
Er, yes, it is only two people. I thought it was more people than that. Must have not been paying careful enough attention to the user names. As to out of context, I don’t think it was out of context at all. The fact that it was hypothetical isn’t what is relevant, the context of their discussion shows an attitude that it really is pointless and moreover worth looking down on (if that isn’t clear, read the paragraph about the hypothetical individual’s background. If that isn’t nerdy elitism, I don’t know what is.)
The fact that it was hypothetical isn’t what is relevant, the context of their discussion shows an attitude that it really is pointless and moreover worth looking down on
You’ll have to do a better job of explaining how, because I don’t get that sense at all, at least not from the part of the discussion you linked to (I haven’t bothered to read the larger context). In fact I’m strongly suspecting pattern-completion here—inferring other things you think the person would say, but aren’t actually present in the cited text.
Meanwhile, I think you ignore disconfirmatory indications. From your description, I never would have guessed that Mass_Driver in fact wrote these sentences:
I want people to do what they really enjoy, even at the cost of them not working on my favorite projects.… if reflection just destroys people’s existing, flawed sources of fun without providing an alternative source of fun, then I wouldn’t want to encourage it....I feel like differences in what people choose to do for fun might reflect differing theories about what is fun, and not just a failure to reflect on one’s activities. Even if the masses’ theories about what is fun are philosophically indefensible, they may nevertheless be real descriptions about what the masses find to be fun, and so I have trouble justifying an attempt to take away that fun without letting go of my commitment to egalitarianism.
Whereas it seems to me that someone who actually thought others’ interests were worth looking down upon wouldn’t have much hesitation about changing them.
(if that isn’t clear, read the paragraph about the hypothetical individual’s background. If that isn’t nerdy elitism, I don’t know what is.)
What, this?:
Imagine a 50-something small business owner with a community college education—maybe he runs a fast food restaurant, or a bike repair shop—who really likes his local sports team. He goes to or watches most of their home games with a few other friends/fans and gets really excited about it and, on balance, has a lot of fun.
That seems like a realistic, non-pejorative description of a fairly large number of actual living people. What part of that description did you find disparaging?
). In fact I’m strongly suspecting pattern-completion here—inferring other things you think the person would say, but aren’t actually present in the cited text.
Hmm, this is a good point. It is possible that I’m engaging in pattern completion or reading more negativity in than is present. It is also possible that that is connected to my own pretty negative attitude towards much of spectator sports. (What is this cognitive error called? If it doesn’t have a name I’d suggest The Modest Proposal Bias.)
Whereas it seems to me that someone who actually thought others’ interests were worth looking down upon wouldn’t have much hesitation about changing them.
I don’t think that’s a correct reading of his remarks. The point is precisely the opposite as I read it, Mass Driver doesn’t want to change their hobbies even as he looks down on them.
That seems like a realistic, non-pejorative description of a fairly large number of actual living people. What part of that description did you find disparaging?
It is realistic for a certain subset, but there’s extraneous details that render it disparaging. There are a lot of smart people who went to very good universities who also are fanatics about their local sports team. The apparent working assumption is that those people don’t exist or exist in negligible numbers.
Whereas it seems to me that someone who actually thought others’ interests were worth looking down upon wouldn’t have much hesitation about changing them.
I don’t think that’s a correct reading of his remarks. The point is precisely the opposite as I read it, Mass Driver doesn’t want to change their hobbies even as he looks down on them.
It wasn’t intended as a “reading” of his remarks; it was a statement of my own view, an argument that I was making that was premised on his remarks. I claim it is a contradiction to “look down on them” and simultaneously not wish to change their hobbies. It thus follows from Mass_Driver’s remarks that he doesn’t “look down on them”—he can’t, because he says he’s okay with them as they are!
It is realistic for a certain subset, but there’s extraneous details that render it disparaging.
This is what you need to explain. I did not find a single “blameworthy” attribute in the description, and nor do I understand how the conjunction of any subset of those attributes could render a person blameworthy.
There are a lot of smart people who went to very good universities who also are fanatics about their local sports team. The apparent working assumption is that those people don’t exist or exist in negligible numbers.
Again, I don’t see how this follows. Is it your contention that if Mass_Driver believed the numbers were more than negligible he would necessarily have used such a person as the example?
(It seems to me that one could, with considerably more justice, accuse you of believing that “smart people” only go to “very good universities”.)
It wasn’t intended as a “reading” of his remarks; it was a statement of my own view, an argument that I was making that was premised on his remarks. I claim it is a contradiction to “look down on them” and simultaneously not wish to change their hobbies. It thus follows from Mass_Driver’s remarks that he doesn’t “look down on them”—he can’t, because he says he’s okay with them as they are!
There may be connotations of “look down on” that we don’t share. or there may be other hidden issues, such as the nature of what it means to change opinions. Thus for example, I’d say that I might look down on an adult who thinks that the card game “War” is worthwhile and fun to play but at the same time I might have something resembling an ideological belief that humans have a right to do their own things even if I find them silly. I think that’s what Mass Driver was getting at when he talked about egalitarianism.
Again, I don’t see how this follows. Is it your contention that if Mass_Driver believed the numbers were more than negligible he would necessarily have used such a person as the example?
He could have avoided all of the biographical that simply didn’t impact the point at all. Once you choose to add extraneous biographic details, what those details are reflects pre-existing conceptions.
(Also I don’t know why you are now using the term “blameworthy” since no one else has. I’m not sure what precisely you mean by it.)
I think a careful reading of that subthread shows that you’ve unfairly taken those comments out of context. Mass Driver’s point was that he/she didn’t want to take away people’s enjoyment of spectator sports, and Nancy Lebovitz was describing a hypothetical scenario where a person loses interest (“find out that spectator sports are pointless”), so that the label referred to that hypothetical person’s own hypothetical (future) opinion. And by “multiple users” you apparently meant just those two.
Er, yes, it is only two people. I thought it was more people than that. Must have not been paying careful enough attention to the user names. As to out of context, I don’t think it was out of context at all. The fact that it was hypothetical isn’t what is relevant, the context of their discussion shows an attitude that it really is pointless and moreover worth looking down on (if that isn’t clear, read the paragraph about the hypothetical individual’s background. If that isn’t nerdy elitism, I don’t know what is.)
You’ll have to do a better job of explaining how, because I don’t get that sense at all, at least not from the part of the discussion you linked to (I haven’t bothered to read the larger context). In fact I’m strongly suspecting pattern-completion here—inferring other things you think the person would say, but aren’t actually present in the cited text.
Meanwhile, I think you ignore disconfirmatory indications. From your description, I never would have guessed that Mass_Driver in fact wrote these sentences:
Whereas it seems to me that someone who actually thought others’ interests were worth looking down upon wouldn’t have much hesitation about changing them.
What, this?:
That seems like a realistic, non-pejorative description of a fairly large number of actual living people. What part of that description did you find disparaging?
Hmm, this is a good point. It is possible that I’m engaging in pattern completion or reading more negativity in than is present. It is also possible that that is connected to my own pretty negative attitude towards much of spectator sports. (What is this cognitive error called? If it doesn’t have a name I’d suggest The Modest Proposal Bias.)
I don’t think that’s a correct reading of his remarks. The point is precisely the opposite as I read it, Mass Driver doesn’t want to change their hobbies even as he looks down on them.
It is realistic for a certain subset, but there’s extraneous details that render it disparaging. There are a lot of smart people who went to very good universities who also are fanatics about their local sports team. The apparent working assumption is that those people don’t exist or exist in negligible numbers.
It sounds like it may be a case of Generalizing from One Example.
It wasn’t intended as a “reading” of his remarks; it was a statement of my own view, an argument that I was making that was premised on his remarks. I claim it is a contradiction to “look down on them” and simultaneously not wish to change their hobbies. It thus follows from Mass_Driver’s remarks that he doesn’t “look down on them”—he can’t, because he says he’s okay with them as they are!
This is what you need to explain. I did not find a single “blameworthy” attribute in the description, and nor do I understand how the conjunction of any subset of those attributes could render a person blameworthy.
Again, I don’t see how this follows. Is it your contention that if Mass_Driver believed the numbers were more than negligible he would necessarily have used such a person as the example?
(It seems to me that one could, with considerably more justice, accuse you of believing that “smart people” only go to “very good universities”.)
There may be connotations of “look down on” that we don’t share. or there may be other hidden issues, such as the nature of what it means to change opinions. Thus for example, I’d say that I might look down on an adult who thinks that the card game “War” is worthwhile and fun to play but at the same time I might have something resembling an ideological belief that humans have a right to do their own things even if I find them silly. I think that’s what Mass Driver was getting at when he talked about egalitarianism.
He could have avoided all of the biographical that simply didn’t impact the point at all. Once you choose to add extraneous biographic details, what those details are reflects pre-existing conceptions.
(Also I don’t know why you are now using the term “blameworthy” since no one else has. I’m not sure what precisely you mean by it.)