I’ve thought a while (with some help from friends) about what made this comment seem objectionable to me. I think what’s bothering me about it is that the linked post is trying to describe a situation where power imbalances cause asymmetric incentives (and ability) to perform interpretive labor. It seems to me like this sort of comment subtly recasts the frame into a debate about whether people should act according to these incentives or indignantly refuse, thus conflating a descriptive claim with a policy recommendation of indignation.
This is an example of the sort of thing I was trying to point to in Model-building and scapegoating; descriptions of a situation that might be a problem are read as intent to blame one class of participant, often one who seems to be benefiting. My post on actors and scribes was also trying to point at this.
power imbalances cause asymmetric incentives (and ability) to perform interpretive labor
In my example the power imbalance is mostly an effect, not a cause. You can apply to work at a programming company as a programmer, and they will accept you if you pass the interview. Or you can—with the same name and face—apply to work as a manager, and they will accept you if you pass the interview. Or you can move from programming to management, I know a bunch of people who did that. Your position is determined by your skills.
You could say “oh, but people in lower positions are prevented from learning the skills needed for higher positions”. But that’s not true in my experience. Programmers aren’t prevented from learning “people stuff”, they know they could do it, it just makes them yawn.
The original post didn’t claim to have awareness of itself. So it’s left as an exercise to the reader to slot themselves in and create that interpretation.
It’s a different style to appeal to one side.
A different style to appeal the second side.
A different style to appeal to one side and be clear about it.
A different style to appeal to the second side and be clear about it.
A different style to appeal to neutrality.
A different style to appeal to neutrality and know it.
A different style to appeal to sidedness “universally”.
A different style to appeal to sidedness “universally” and know it.
A different style to appeal to sidedness “universally” and know it and get it wrong.
A different style to appeal to sidedness “universally” and know it, and get it wrong, and know it, and show it all.
A different style to appeal to sidedness “universally” and know it, and get it wrong, and know it, and show it all. In a neutral frame while still being useful to the earlier 10 stances.
Trouble is, the further up this tree that one climbs, the cloudier it is to see clarity from gibberish.
I am disturbed by this comment. It seems like you are interpreting the post as doing coalitional politics and ignoring the descriptive content. The fact that descriptive statements about power dynamics automatically get interpreted as doing coalitional politics is the whole issue here.
If this goes too far then all words will be interpreted as violence and we will no longer be able to talk ourselves out of this mess because such talking would itself be interpreted as violence; everything would degenerate into an unproductive and destructive mess of zero-sum conflict. I am actually really worried about this happening and want to strongly push back against it.
Notice that I didn’t claim to be one side or another. I didn’t even claim to be critical or uncritical of the post. Or claim which level the post was on. And there are more levels above.
Also everyone is always playing on many levels. But also we trust and take charitably each other’s ideas. Without that trust we really do live in zero safety world.
I’ve thought a while (with some help from friends) about what made this comment seem objectionable to me. I think what’s bothering me about it is that the linked post is trying to describe a situation where power imbalances cause asymmetric incentives (and ability) to perform interpretive labor. It seems to me like this sort of comment subtly recasts the frame into a debate about whether people should act according to these incentives or indignantly refuse, thus conflating a descriptive claim with a policy recommendation of indignation.
This is an example of the sort of thing I was trying to point to in Model-building and scapegoating; descriptions of a situation that might be a problem are read as intent to blame one class of participant, often one who seems to be benefiting. My post on actors and scribes was also trying to point at this.
In my example the power imbalance is mostly an effect, not a cause. You can apply to work at a programming company as a programmer, and they will accept you if you pass the interview. Or you can—with the same name and face—apply to work as a manager, and they will accept you if you pass the interview. Or you can move from programming to management, I know a bunch of people who did that. Your position is determined by your skills.
You could say “oh, but people in lower positions are prevented from learning the skills needed for higher positions”. But that’s not true in my experience. Programmers aren’t prevented from learning “people stuff”, they know they could do it, it just makes them yawn.
OK, “cause” was too strong—correlate with.
Would this problem be resolved by adding awareness to “which one I am”. When throwing around self or external blame?
“I recognise I’m blaming everyone else for my problems”
“I recognise I’m. Blaming myself for my problems”
Given that the original post was not blaming anyone for anything and was interpreted as such anyway, this would not resolve the issue.
The original post didn’t claim to have awareness of itself. So it’s left as an exercise to the reader to slot themselves in and create that interpretation.
It’s a different style to appeal to one side.
A different style to appeal the second side.
A different style to appeal to one side and be clear about it.
A different style to appeal to the second side and be clear about it.
A different style to appeal to neutrality.
A different style to appeal to neutrality and know it.
A different style to appeal to sidedness “universally”.
A different style to appeal to sidedness “universally” and know it.
A different style to appeal to sidedness “universally” and know it and get it wrong.
A different style to appeal to sidedness “universally” and know it, and get it wrong, and know it, and show it all.
A different style to appeal to sidedness “universally” and know it, and get it wrong, and know it, and show it all. In a neutral frame while still being useful to the earlier 10 stances.
Trouble is, the further up this tree that one climbs, the cloudier it is to see clarity from gibberish.
I am disturbed by this comment. It seems like you are interpreting the post as doing coalitional politics and ignoring the descriptive content. The fact that descriptive statements about power dynamics automatically get interpreted as doing coalitional politics is the whole issue here.
If this goes too far then all words will be interpreted as violence and we will no longer be able to talk ourselves out of this mess because such talking would itself be interpreted as violence; everything would degenerate into an unproductive and destructive mess of zero-sum conflict. I am actually really worried about this happening and want to strongly push back against it.
Notice that I didn’t claim to be one side or another. I didn’t even claim to be critical or uncritical of the post. Or claim which level the post was on. And there are more levels above.
Also everyone is always playing on many levels. But also we trust and take charitably each other’s ideas. Without that trust we really do live in zero safety world.