FWIW I believe “Yud” is a dispreferred term (because it’s predominantly used by sneering critics), and your comment wouldn’t have gotten so many downvotes without it.
Something I try to keep in mind about critics is that people who deeply disagree with you are also not usually very invested in what you’re doing, so from their perspective there isn’t much of an incentive to put effort into their criticism. But in theory, the people who disagree with you the most are also the ones you can learn the most from.
You want to be the sort of person where if you’re raised Christian, and an atheist casually criticizes Christianity, you don’t reject the criticism immediately because “they didn’t even take the time to read the Bible!”
I think I have a lot less (true, useful, action-relevant) stuff to learn from a random fundamentalist Christian than from Carl Shulman, even though I disagree vastly more with the fundamentalist than I do with Carl.
Prescriptive appropriateness vs. descriptive appropriateness.
ESRogs is pointing out a valuable item in a civilizing peace treaty; an available weapon that, if left unused, allows a greater set of possible cooperations to come into existence. “Not appropriate” as a normative/hopeful statement, signaling his position as a signatory to that disarmament clause and one who hopes LW has already or will also sign on, as a subculture.
Zack is pointing out that, from the inside of a slur, it has precisely the purpose that ESRogs is labeling inappropriate. For a slur to express hostility and disregard is like a hammer being used to pound nails. “Entirely appropriate” as a descriptive/technical statement.
I think it would have been better if Zack had made that distinction, which I think he’s aware of, but I’m happy to pop in to help; I suspect meeting that bar would’ve prevented him from saying anything at all in this case, which would probably have been worse overall.
FWIW I believe “Yud” is a dispreferred term (because it’s predominantly used by sneering critics), and your comment wouldn’t have gotten so many downvotes without it.
I strong-downvoted because because they didn’t bother to even link to the so-called screed. (Forgive me for not blindly trusting throwaway46237896.)
Something I try to keep in mind about critics is that people who deeply disagree with you are also not usually very invested in what you’re doing, so from their perspective there isn’t much of an incentive to put effort into their criticism. But in theory, the people who disagree with you the most are also the ones you can learn the most from.
You want to be the sort of person where if you’re raised Christian, and an atheist casually criticizes Christianity, you don’t reject the criticism immediately because “they didn’t even take the time to read the Bible!”
I think I have a lot less (true, useful, action-relevant) stuff to learn from a random fundamentalist Christian than from Carl Shulman, even though I disagree vastly more with the fundamentalist than I do with Carl.
The original “sneer club” comment?
Really? I do it because it’s easier to type. Maybe I’m missing some historical context here.
For some reason a bunch of people started referring to him as “Big Yud” on Twitter. Here’s some context regarding EY’s feelings about it.
I’m a former member turned very hostile to the community represented here these days. So that’s appropriate, I guess.
Any thoughts on how we can help you be at peace?
I disagree that it’s appropriate to use terms for people that they consider slurs because they’re part of a community that you don’t like.
It’s entirely appropriate! Expressing hostility is what slurs are for!
Prescriptive appropriateness vs. descriptive appropriateness.
ESRogs is pointing out a valuable item in a civilizing peace treaty; an available weapon that, if left unused, allows a greater set of possible cooperations to come into existence. “Not appropriate” as a normative/hopeful statement, signaling his position as a signatory to that disarmament clause and one who hopes LW has already or will also sign on, as a subculture.
Zack is pointing out that, from the inside of a slur, it has precisely the purpose that ESRogs is labeling inappropriate. For a slur to express hostility and disregard is like a hammer being used to pound nails. “Entirely appropriate” as a descriptive/technical statement.
I think it would have been better if Zack had made that distinction, which I think he’s aware of, but I’m happy to pop in to help; I suspect meeting that bar would’ve prevented him from saying anything at all in this case, which would probably have been worse overall.