I would be interested to hear your reply to the more substantive charges that Roko levels. I am in general in agreement with him that while the issue you raise is worth thinking about and discussing, your method of talking about it is thoroughly and consistently disingenuous. To wit: In your classification you left out a fourth group of people, of which I would consider myself one: people who actively support gender-neutrality but have a completely different definition of it and who consider people with your definition to be the ones similar to fish swimming the water, unaware that they are wet.
Can you please address the real issues that Roko raises here, especially in the pargraph that begins “Alicorn has contributed...”? Your reply here seems to be avoiding the Least Convenient Possible argument.
Or the comment that I posted here? I understand that you have had to post many replies since posting your piece the other day, but I am still unsatisfied.
She has started name-calling against the other side (“Jerkitude” “disincentivize being piggish”)
Guilty, I suppose.
started to attempt to form a political band of feminist allies
I really wouldn’t think of it or put it like that. I was hoping to alert the group that I still suspect is the majority (the group who, prior to said alert, were sympathetic but oblivious). I do consider making friends a great side effect of participating in this community, but apart from the fact that I mostly make friends with people who don’t say rude and stupid things about women, I don’t think I could call them “a political band of feminist allies”.
implicitly asked these new allies to downvote anyone who disagrees with her position
Since this accusation is leveled at something “implicit”, asking me to respond to it is asking me to take responsibility for Roko’s interpretation of what I said, but all right. Disagreement is not the problem. If we were having serious discussions about whether certain language is okay, that would be disagreement, and I would not downvote or ask anyone else to downvote polite and thoughtful arguments in favor of talking more or less the way Roko et. al. have been. I will downvote and hope that others will downvote comments that operate under the assumption that the status quo of language (namely, one in which sexist ideas slide in unobtrusively without people generally batting an eye) is unassailably correct. Posts and comments that use sexist language and express sexist ideas without disclaiming them or acknowledging that they might be identified that way should not be seen as the typical way of things in need of no thought from anyone about their hurtful effects.
and asks her faction to begin enforcing her ideas, specifically by criticising, ostracizing or downvoting
I have a faction? Cool! I didn’t realize I had a faction. I always wanted to lead a faction when I grew up!
I will charitably assume that “specifically” crept in there by accident, since I never said anything about ostracism, I think it should go without saying that everyone is subject to criticism, and as far as downvoting goes—see above.
anyone who engages in a perfectly standard use of langage and thought: modeling the generic human female as a mechanical system and using that model to make predictions about reality.
The idea that the language I complain about is “perfectly standard” is exactly what I want to attack. “Seems normal to Roko” is not the criterion for perfect standardization.
She has billed this effort as a moral crusade (“unethical”).
I’d really not like to be associated with anything termed a “crusade”. I do think that ethical concerns are highly relevant when discussing how gendered language is used.
I am sure she isn’t doing this on purpose
The things I do, I mostly do on purpose. It isn’t very kind of Roko to assume that I do things he doesn’t like because it’s an accident and I just can’t help myself, instead of because I don’t agree with him and actually intend to do things differently than he would.
A reply to your other comment, Rings_of_Saturn, will be along shortly. Your interest in what I have to say, even if you don’t like all of it, is appreciated.
Alicorn:
I would be interested to hear your reply to the more substantive charges that Roko levels. I am in general in agreement with him that while the issue you raise is worth thinking about and discussing, your method of talking about it is thoroughly and consistently disingenuous. To wit: In your classification you left out a fourth group of people, of which I would consider myself one: people who actively support gender-neutrality but have a completely different definition of it and who consider people with your definition to be the ones similar to fish swimming the water, unaware that they are wet.
Can you please address the real issues that Roko raises here, especially in the pargraph that begins “Alicorn has contributed...”? Your reply here seems to be avoiding the Least Convenient Possible argument.
Or the comment that I posted here? I understand that you have had to post many replies since posting your piece the other day, but I am still unsatisfied.
As you request, so I comply.
Guilty, I suppose.
I really wouldn’t think of it or put it like that. I was hoping to alert the group that I still suspect is the majority (the group who, prior to said alert, were sympathetic but oblivious). I do consider making friends a great side effect of participating in this community, but apart from the fact that I mostly make friends with people who don’t say rude and stupid things about women, I don’t think I could call them “a political band of feminist allies”.
Since this accusation is leveled at something “implicit”, asking me to respond to it is asking me to take responsibility for Roko’s interpretation of what I said, but all right. Disagreement is not the problem. If we were having serious discussions about whether certain language is okay, that would be disagreement, and I would not downvote or ask anyone else to downvote polite and thoughtful arguments in favor of talking more or less the way Roko et. al. have been. I will downvote and hope that others will downvote comments that operate under the assumption that the status quo of language (namely, one in which sexist ideas slide in unobtrusively without people generally batting an eye) is unassailably correct. Posts and comments that use sexist language and express sexist ideas without disclaiming them or acknowledging that they might be identified that way should not be seen as the typical way of things in need of no thought from anyone about their hurtful effects.
I have a faction? Cool! I didn’t realize I had a faction. I always wanted to lead a faction when I grew up!
I will charitably assume that “specifically” crept in there by accident, since I never said anything about ostracism, I think it should go without saying that everyone is subject to criticism, and as far as downvoting goes—see above.
The idea that the language I complain about is “perfectly standard” is exactly what I want to attack. “Seems normal to Roko” is not the criterion for perfect standardization.
I’d really not like to be associated with anything termed a “crusade”. I do think that ethical concerns are highly relevant when discussing how gendered language is used.
The things I do, I mostly do on purpose. It isn’t very kind of Roko to assume that I do things he doesn’t like because it’s an accident and I just can’t help myself, instead of because I don’t agree with him and actually intend to do things differently than he would.
A reply to your other comment, Rings_of_Saturn, will be along shortly. Your interest in what I have to say, even if you don’t like all of it, is appreciated.