I’m not sure that anything should be done about it, at least if we look at it from whole society’s perspective. (Or rather, we should try to avoid the echo chamber effect if possible, but not at the cost of reducing dispassionate discussion.) If some places discuss sensitive issues dispassionately, then those places risk becoming echo chambers; but if no place does so, then there won’t be any place for dispassionate discussion of those issues. I have a hard time believing that a policy that led to some issue only being discussed in emotionally charged terms would be a net good for society.
Wouldn’t it be possible to minimize signaling given the same level of dispassionate discussion? That is, discourage use of highly emotionally charged/exosemantically heavy words/phrases if a less charged equivalent exists or can be coined and defined.
Say if you have a word X that means Y plus emotional connotation α and thede/memeplex/identity signaling effect β (not that emotional connotation is detached from the thedish/political/identity-wise context of the reader, of course), there’s really no reason to use X instead of Y in dispassionate discussion. To give a concrete example, there’s no reason to use ‘sluttiness’ (denotatively equivalent to ‘sexual promiscuity’ but carrying a generally negative connotational load, signaling against certain memeplexes/political positions/identities (though ideally readers here would read past the signaling load/repress the negative emotional response), and signaling identification with other positions/identities) instead of ‘sexual promiscuity’, which means the same thing but sheds all the emotional and thedish/tribal/whatever baggage.
(That shouldn’t be read as an endorsement of the reasoning toward the same conclusion in the post, of course.)
I don’t believe this is feasible. My impression is that emotional connotations inhere in things, not in words.
Over the decades, society has, over the decades, gone through a whole string of synonyms for “limited intelligence”—none of which are emotionally neutral. Changing terms from “imbecile”, to “retarded”, “developmentally disabled” to “special needs”, has just resulted in a steady turnover of playground insults. You can’t make an insulting concept emotionally neutral, I think.
The two aren’t contradictory: emotional connotations can inhere in things and words.
The euphemism treadmill is what you get when the emotional connotation inheres in a thing. But what emotional connotation inheres in ‘sexual promiscuity’? Even if it is there (and its recommendation by someone sensitive enough to emotional connotations that inhere in words [from the perspective of a specific thede/tribe] seems to suggest that it isn’t), certainly there’s less negative connotation there than in ‘sluttiness’.
Similarly, it’s possible to find loaded equivalents, or at least approximations, for most (all?) of Mencius Moldbug’s caste terms. (UR is a good place to mine for these sorts of pairs, since he coins emotionally neutral terms to replace, or at least approximate, emotionally loaded terms. Of course, if you use them, you’re signaling that you’ve read Moldbug, but...)
I have a hard time believing that a policy that led to some issue only being discussed in emotionally charged terms would be a net good for society.
But you’re also a white man and have an obvious lack of experience in this situation that functions as an unknown unknown. You’d be wise to be conservative in your conclusions.
As a white man myself, I feel it’s entirely reasonable to refuse to dispassionately discuss the matter of a boot on one’s own face. There are some situations in which case it is entirely appropriate to react with the deepest of passions.
If the iron approaches your face, and you believe it is cool, and it is hot, the Way opposes your calm.
As a white man (according to your own beliefs) you can’t understand how women or non-whites feel, so please stop appropriating their cause and speaking for them.
There are people on LW who aren’t white or male, so (according to your own beliefs) you should let them talk, instead of talking from your ignorant position of white male privilege about what you think is better for them. That’s mansplaining, right?
This is a hot iron approaching my face. YOU ARE TELLING ME MY THOUGHTS AND FEELINGS ARE ILLEGITIMATE. That is literally the first step to dehumanizing and murdering me. I can either follow your advice and tell you to fuck off, or I can try to address this disagreement in a reasonable way. Which do you think will go better for me? Which do you think will go better for you? I for one don’t think the adversarial approach of many feminist and pro queer writers is sane. You really should not declare the people you think are extremely powerful and controlling the world to be your sworn enemies. Feminism literally cannot win any victories without the consent of men.
I’ve got a lot of sympathy for your situation—I spent a lot of time freaking out about the complex emotional abuse that anti-racists/certain kinds of feminists go in for.
Still, I found it useful to learn something about assessing the current risk level of an attack just so I don’t go crazy—they’ve spread a lot of misery and they may eventually be politically dangerous, but they aren’t imposing the sort of immediate visceral threat you’re reacting to.
We haven’t begun to see the next stage of the fight (or at least, I haven’t seen anything I’d call effective opposition to the emotional abuse), but I recommend steadying yourself as much as possible.
YOU ARE TELLING ME MY THOUGHTS AND FEELINGS ARE ILLEGITIMATE.
Sometimes this is the case. Once you’ve realized this, try not to let it bother you too much. What’s true is already so; denying it doesn’t make it go away, and shouting on the Internet won’t make it go away either.
That is literally the first step to dehumanizing and murdering me.
If you’re worried about this, you’re either a totally normal oppressed persyn, or a paranoid white dude.
If you’re a white dude, you should stop appropriating very real fears that plenty of people face on a daily basis. That’s just bad taste.
I for one don’t think the adversarial approach of many feminist and pro queer writers is sane.
Assuming you’re a white dude, it’s really not your place to tell feminists or queer activists how to do what they do.
Do you see how your privilege has you assuming that you 1. know best and 2. should tell other people how to exist? Not to mention the fact you apparently think men are somehow necessary for feminist collective action.
I’m not sure that anything should be done about it, at least if we look at it from whole society’s perspective. (Or rather, we should try to avoid the echo chamber effect if possible, but not at the cost of reducing dispassionate discussion.) If some places discuss sensitive issues dispassionately, then those places risk becoming echo chambers; but if no place does so, then there won’t be any place for dispassionate discussion of those issues. I have a hard time believing that a policy that led to some issue only being discussed in emotionally charged terms would be a net good for society.
Yes, the complaint strikes me as “Stop saying things we don’t like, it might lead to disapproved opinions being silenced!
Wouldn’t it be possible to minimize signaling given the same level of dispassionate discussion? That is, discourage use of highly emotionally charged/exosemantically heavy words/phrases if a less charged equivalent exists or can be coined and defined.
Say if you have a word X that means Y plus emotional connotation α and thede/memeplex/identity signaling effect β (not that emotional connotation is detached from the thedish/political/identity-wise context of the reader, of course), there’s really no reason to use X instead of Y in dispassionate discussion. To give a concrete example, there’s no reason to use ‘sluttiness’ (denotatively equivalent to ‘sexual promiscuity’ but carrying a generally negative connotational load, signaling against certain memeplexes/political positions/identities (though ideally readers here would read past the signaling load/repress the negative emotional response), and signaling identification with other positions/identities) instead of ‘sexual promiscuity’, which means the same thing but sheds all the emotional and thedish/tribal/whatever baggage.
(That shouldn’t be read as an endorsement of the reasoning toward the same conclusion in the post, of course.)
I don’t believe this is feasible. My impression is that emotional connotations inhere in things, not in words.
Over the decades, society has, over the decades, gone through a whole string of synonyms for “limited intelligence”—none of which are emotionally neutral. Changing terms from “imbecile”, to “retarded”, “developmentally disabled” to “special needs”, has just resulted in a steady turnover of playground insults. You can’t make an insulting concept emotionally neutral, I think.
The two aren’t contradictory: emotional connotations can inhere in things and words.
The euphemism treadmill is what you get when the emotional connotation inheres in a thing. But what emotional connotation inheres in ‘sexual promiscuity’? Even if it is there (and its recommendation by someone sensitive enough to emotional connotations that inhere in words [from the perspective of a specific thede/tribe] seems to suggest that it isn’t), certainly there’s less negative connotation there than in ‘sluttiness’.
Similarly, it’s possible to find loaded equivalents, or at least approximations, for most (all?) of Mencius Moldbug’s caste terms. (UR is a good place to mine for these sorts of pairs, since he coins emotionally neutral terms to replace, or at least approximate, emotionally loaded terms. Of course, if you use them, you’re signaling that you’ve read Moldbug, but...)
I get the impression that we’re already pretty much mostly discusing issues in a “less emotionally laden” way, avoiding shocking words,etc., no?
But you’re also a white man and have an obvious lack of experience in this situation that functions as an unknown unknown. You’d be wise to be conservative in your conclusions.
As a white man myself, I feel it’s entirely reasonable to refuse to dispassionately discuss the matter of a boot on one’s own face. There are some situations in which case it is entirely appropriate to react with the deepest of passions.
As a white man (according to your own beliefs) you can’t understand how women or non-whites feel, so please stop appropriating their cause and speaking for them.
There are people on LW who aren’t white or male, so (according to your own beliefs) you should let them talk, instead of talking from your ignorant position of white male privilege about what you think is better for them. That’s mansplaining, right?
This is a hot iron approaching my face. YOU ARE TELLING ME MY THOUGHTS AND FEELINGS ARE ILLEGITIMATE. That is literally the first step to dehumanizing and murdering me. I can either follow your advice and tell you to fuck off, or I can try to address this disagreement in a reasonable way. Which do you think will go better for me? Which do you think will go better for you? I for one don’t think the adversarial approach of many feminist and pro queer writers is sane. You really should not declare the people you think are extremely powerful and controlling the world to be your sworn enemies. Feminism literally cannot win any victories without the consent of men.
I’ve got a lot of sympathy for your situation—I spent a lot of time freaking out about the complex emotional abuse that anti-racists/certain kinds of feminists go in for.
Still, I found it useful to learn something about assessing the current risk level of an attack just so I don’t go crazy—they’ve spread a lot of misery and they may eventually be politically dangerous, but they aren’t imposing the sort of immediate visceral threat you’re reacting to.
We haven’t begun to see the next stage of the fight (or at least, I haven’t seen anything I’d call effective opposition to the emotional abuse), but I recommend steadying yourself as much as possible.
Sometimes this is the case. Once you’ve realized this, try not to let it bother you too much. What’s true is already so; denying it doesn’t make it go away, and shouting on the Internet won’t make it go away either.
If you’re worried about this, you’re either a totally normal oppressed persyn, or a paranoid white dude.
If you’re a white dude, you should stop appropriating very real fears that plenty of people face on a daily basis. That’s just bad taste.
Assuming you’re a white dude, it’s really not your place to tell feminists or queer activists how to do what they do.
Do you see how your privilege has you assuming that you 1. know best and 2. should tell other people how to exist? Not to mention the fact you apparently think men are somehow necessary for feminist collective action.