Those who seem to be denying the premise, or claiming that it’s evil to say it, are actually attempting to attack a social process, not a truth-finding process.
The problem is that the fact “agents who perform tend to have higher incidences of happen to them”, where means “send signals that can be interpreted as sexual availability by a male audience” and means “sexual assault”, is that it isn’t simply a statement of fact—it’s also an attempt at social norming. It’s a direct process of rectifying is-ought, by saying “see? you sluts deserve it”, without having to actually say “see? you sluts deserve it”.
When facts gain sufficient social baggage that they tend to imply behavior associated with the people speaking them, those facts have become memetically corrupted. At that point, you can no longer deal with them as pure facts; you HAVE to deal with the meme. Engaging with the “pure fact” allows people with an agenda to slip in the meme like a trojan horse, in the guise of “just stating the facts”.
Don’t blame the people who appear to be fighting the facts in this case; blame the people who deliberately conflated the fact with the meme vector, because they deliberately corrupted the factual landscape in order to promote their agenda.
And yes, in these cases, concepts like “blame” are important, because we’re talking about competing social agendas, and humans are notoriously bad at abstract consequentialism. If you must step back all the way, examine the kinds of worlds that both sides are supporting, and then evaluate whether speaking the truth is possible given the strategies employed by both sides—and if it isn’t, encyst the truth and wait for the environment to shift to be more truth-favorable, THEN examine it in the light of that environment.
I tried to explicitly distinguish “this sounds like a sensible policy for the selfish individual, given that douchebags aren’t yet under control” and “anyone who doesn’t apply that policy deserves douchebags unleashed upon them”. That went over everyone’s heads. Is there any way to disclaim? It should at least be possible in theory—if someone chooses driving over flying because they get sick in planes, nobody will be less than sympathetic if their car crashes.
The problem is that we’ve had 50+ years of “dog whistle” politics applied explicitly to social justice discussions, so even if you try to explicitly distinguish your statement as the former and not the latter, it is more rational to assume that you are lying than that you are telling the truth. If you are telling the truth, then this is not your fault—but it is also not the fault of your audience, who are receiving your communication on a poisoned channel.
Luckily, there is an newish Overcoming Bias article about this very subject:
EDIT: Note to whomever just systematically downvoted the last 25 articles and posts I made to this site over the course of 8 minutes: is that behavior actually in any way helpful? Does it, in fact, increase the probability that you, or I, or anyone else becomes more rational? If not, why do it?
Inorite! But I’d expect it to be possible for a politician, and, a fortiori, a Less Wronger, to say something along the lines of: “We have too much centralized legislation, and states should be more autonomous. And yes, I know the last time someone said that he was implying that segregation was okay. But I’m seriously talking about the denotation of ‘states’ rights’ here, and obviously ‘not being super racist’ is part of the stuff I’m not proposing to leave up to states, like, duh. So about giving states more power...”. Dog-whistles rest on, perhaps not subtlety, but at least subtext—explicitly disclaiming it looks sufficient in my model. What did I miss?
You missed the inevitable arms-race between mimics and legitimate signalers. We’re in an evolutionary environment, and assuming that any communication can be taken at face value is a kind of naïveté.
If you want to construct an argument where state’s rights (or women sensibly protecting themselves) is important, you have to spend extra effort in your signaling. You need to START by explicitly acknowledging all of the things you might be accused of, BEFORE you present your actual point. You then have to specifically display all of the ways in which your point differs from the false (dog-whistle) signal. For example:
We have too much centralized legislation, and states should be more autonomous. And yes, I know the last time someone said that he was implying that segregation was okay. But I’m seriously talking about the denotation of ‘states’ rights’ here, and obviously ‘not being super racist’ is part of the stuff I’m not proposing to leave up to states, like, duh. So about giving states more power...
This is the wrong order, and expends insufficient effort in its signaling process to demonstrate that it is not a false signal. This works better:
“A. Most state’s rights arguments are, in fact, racist dog-whistles. Unfortunately, some actual, legitimate situations in which states’ rights are being trampled upon are swept under the rug, due in part to the poisoning of the discourse by those very dog-whistles.
B. Here is why states should be more autonomous...
C. Here is how we prevent the abuses of state autonomy that happened in the past, while rescuing the needed autonomy that I’m advocating...”
Your system starts with B, then inserts a weak form of A, then jumps back to B—while nearly-completely ignoring C. This is insufficient to distinguish you from a false signaller. By providing a good A, B, and C, you establish that you are willing to expend effort to not be seen as a false signaller (A), clearly present your position (B), and indicate that you recognize the dangers of the false signalers’ agenda and are willing to help fight against it as a concession to getting the things you want (C).
I disagree with that statement.
Those who seem to be denying the premise, or claiming that it’s evil to say it, are actually attempting to attack a social process, not a truth-finding process.
The problem is that the fact “agents who perform tend to have higher incidences of happen to them”, where means “send signals that can be interpreted as sexual availability by a male audience” and means “sexual assault”, is that it isn’t simply a statement of fact—it’s also an attempt at social norming. It’s a direct process of rectifying is-ought, by saying “see? you sluts deserve it”, without having to actually say “see? you sluts deserve it”.
When facts gain sufficient social baggage that they tend to imply behavior associated with the people speaking them, those facts have become memetically corrupted. At that point, you can no longer deal with them as pure facts; you HAVE to deal with the meme. Engaging with the “pure fact” allows people with an agenda to slip in the meme like a trojan horse, in the guise of “just stating the facts”.
Don’t blame the people who appear to be fighting the facts in this case; blame the people who deliberately conflated the fact with the meme vector, because they deliberately corrupted the factual landscape in order to promote their agenda.
And yes, in these cases, concepts like “blame” are important, because we’re talking about competing social agendas, and humans are notoriously bad at abstract consequentialism. If you must step back all the way, examine the kinds of worlds that both sides are supporting, and then evaluate whether speaking the truth is possible given the strategies employed by both sides—and if it isn’t, encyst the truth and wait for the environment to shift to be more truth-favorable, THEN examine it in the light of that environment.
I tried to explicitly distinguish “this sounds like a sensible policy for the selfish individual, given that douchebags aren’t yet under control” and “anyone who doesn’t apply that policy deserves douchebags unleashed upon them”. That went over everyone’s heads. Is there any way to disclaim? It should at least be possible in theory—if someone chooses driving over flying because they get sick in planes, nobody will be less than sympathetic if their car crashes.
The problem is that we’ve had 50+ years of “dog whistle” politics applied explicitly to social justice discussions, so even if you try to explicitly distinguish your statement as the former and not the latter, it is more rational to assume that you are lying than that you are telling the truth. If you are telling the truth, then this is not your fault—but it is also not the fault of your audience, who are receiving your communication on a poisoned channel.
Luckily, there is an newish Overcoming Bias article about this very subject:
Can a Tiny Bit of Noise Destroy Communication?
EDIT: Note to whomever just systematically downvoted the last 25 articles and posts I made to this site over the course of 8 minutes: is that behavior actually in any way helpful? Does it, in fact, increase the probability that you, or I, or anyone else becomes more rational? If not, why do it?
Inorite! But I’d expect it to be possible for a politician, and, a fortiori, a Less Wronger, to say something along the lines of: “We have too much centralized legislation, and states should be more autonomous. And yes, I know the last time someone said that he was implying that segregation was okay. But I’m seriously talking about the denotation of ‘states’ rights’ here, and obviously ‘not being super racist’ is part of the stuff I’m not proposing to leave up to states, like, duh. So about giving states more power...”. Dog-whistles rest on, perhaps not subtlety, but at least subtext—explicitly disclaiming it looks sufficient in my model. What did I miss?
You missed the inevitable arms-race between mimics and legitimate signalers. We’re in an evolutionary environment, and assuming that any communication can be taken at face value is a kind of naïveté.
If you want to construct an argument where state’s rights (or women sensibly protecting themselves) is important, you have to spend extra effort in your signaling. You need to START by explicitly acknowledging all of the things you might be accused of, BEFORE you present your actual point. You then have to specifically display all of the ways in which your point differs from the false (dog-whistle) signal. For example:
This is the wrong order, and expends insufficient effort in its signaling process to demonstrate that it is not a false signal. This works better:
“A. Most state’s rights arguments are, in fact, racist dog-whistles. Unfortunately, some actual, legitimate situations in which states’ rights are being trampled upon are swept under the rug, due in part to the poisoning of the discourse by those very dog-whistles.
B. Here is why states should be more autonomous...
C. Here is how we prevent the abuses of state autonomy that happened in the past, while rescuing the needed autonomy that I’m advocating...”
Your system starts with B, then inserts a weak form of A, then jumps back to B—while nearly-completely ignoring C. This is insufficient to distinguish you from a false signaller. By providing a good A, B, and C, you establish that you are willing to expend effort to not be seen as a false signaller (A), clearly present your position (B), and indicate that you recognize the dangers of the false signalers’ agenda and are willing to help fight against it as a concession to getting the things you want (C).
Does all that make sense?