1741

From Googling, it looks like it was a limited quote blown up by clickbait articles.

“What I see here is that if you are a conservative Evangelical at a major law firm or at an Ivy League university, you have a much harder time coming out of the closet as a conservative Evangelical than you do coming out as a gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender.”

Nothing to see here on that one.

1742

In normal language, racial prejudice is more or less synonymous with racism, only with racism there’s some element of hokey theory about why some races are supposedly superior or inferior to others, IOW, in normal language, racism is “racialism+prejudice”. “Prejudice+power” is exactly the sort of worthless ideological bullshit I’ve been talking about (abstraction of “power”).

Again, this happens because you refuse to agree on common language with other people. To them, a black person can be prejudiced but cannot be racist.

What absolute twaddle. You don’t “agree on common language”, common language is something that pre-exists that you participate in; it’s the precipitate of the multitude of individual, idiosyncratic, personal usages, just as prices on the market are the precipitate of all the pairwise “sell/not sell, buy/not buy at that price” interactions; the dictionary is analogous to a list of common prices for things.

You can agree or disagree on definitions, and you can “agree”-in-use, in the sense of happen to use words in the same way; but you can’t “agree on language”. The very concept is nonsensical, it turns language into a fetish. To say you “agree on common language” is like saying you “agree with prices”.

Words don’t mean something by an act of common fiat. Well, they can do, but the result is a religious text.

That is not the normal use of “harassment”.

The normal use is, “to annoy or bother (someone) in a constant or repeated way”.

Legally, one episode of unwanted contact is may be sufficient.

Even if that were true (which it doesn’t appear to be - most of the legal definitions involve “conduct on more than one occasion”, or “systematic and/or continued, unwanted and annoying”), the legal use is not necessarily the normal usage. At any rate, under no normal definition of harassment is looking at someone, or complimenting them on their looks, harassment. Nor is receiving in your inbox, in response to a public pronouncement of yours, a bunch of emails that disagree with your pronouncement.

And here is the problem. You are starting with the premise that you have the right to prove others wrong, the right to try to change the minds of strangers.

Of course I do, everyone does, by virtue of the right to free speech, which may be critical, and may purport to demonstrate that a person is wrong. Whether they think the criticism is valid, or let it change their minds, is up to them. “Proving someone wrong” is not an aggressive magical act that intrudes into another’s psyche and diddles with it.

But some people do not want to change their minds, they do not want to be proven wrong, and they are not interested in what you have to say. That’s their right. Just leave them alone.

When people don’t want to change their minds that’s called dogmatism. That people certainly do have a right to not be interested in what one says is irrelevant to the question of whether they are closed-minded or not. They don’t need your misguided white knighting either.

1743

What became Gamergate started a year or more before the Zoepost, back around late 2013, with the Quinn/Grayson shenanigans and other dubious goings-on. The current received wisdom that it all started with the Zoepost and with “misogyny” is just useful idiots furiously virtue-signalling in a desperate attempt not to be labelled “misogynist”.

You mean the communism that progressively moderated and moderated and moderated until it vanished?

No I mean the Communism that resulted in purges and megadeaths in Russia, the Communism that resulted in purges and megadeaths in China, the Communism that resulted in purges and megadeaths in Korea, the Communism that resulted in purges and megadeaths in Vietnam, the Communism that resulted in purges and megadeaths in Cambodia.

And then most of them moderated. Oopsy. Shame about the broken eggs, but it’s all in a good cause eh?

Leaving aside the absurdity that you fear an evil extremst feminist cabal getting ahold of a nuclear stockpile,

Strawperson.

Communists have had nuclear weapons for 60 years. We’re all still here.

That’s because they moderated and became rational actors - they did so by pulling away from the sort of commitment to ideology that had initially driven their revolutions, IOW, they became rational actors by becoming less ideology driven.

We don’t have the luxury of letting ideological movements moderate by learning from experience any more.

Needless to say that the ideological particulars of capitalism and communism are not significant in a real world sense when it comes to world powers jockeying for hegemony. If that didn’t kill us, then radical academic fringe movements and islamofascist terror-cults probably won’t manage the job either.

All the Communist movements that did so much damage in the 20th century started off as “fringe movements”.

1744

It may be worthless to you, but it has value to others. If you can’t agree on what the word means, why do you even bother reading the rest? It’s like being fixated on the idea that music requires melody, and getting angry every time you see a review of “rap music”.

You don’t “agree on common language”, common language is something that pre-exists that you participate in; it’s the precipitate of the multitude of individual, idiosyncratic, personal usages, just as prices on the market are the precipitate of all the pairwise “sell/not sell, buy/not buy at that price” interactions; the dictionary is analogous to a list of common prices for things.

Language, like prices, change over time. Change with it, or accept that you won’t be understood.

Of course I do, everyone does, by virtue of the right to free speech, which may be critical, and may purport to demonstrate that a person is wrong.

You have the right to free speech, but you don’t have the right to be heard. If someone isn’t listening to you, you can only blame yourself. Either you didn’t engage them properly, or you were wasting your time from the start.

That people certainly do have a right to not be interested in what one says is irrelevant to the question of whether they are closed-minded or not.

Why do you care whether some stranger on the internet has an open mind regarding what you have to say? Particularly when you show every bit of dogmatism they do, in your own way.

When two groups are at an impasse, your Theory suggests the only result is Nuclear Armageddon. But that’s not true. The actual result is an end to communication.

1745

I agree Gamergate is an extension of the anti-feminist and misogynist crusade that was already being carried out online. It was never about ethics in games journalism. That’s been so thoroughly debunked. The idiocy of the whole thing is staggering. Thank god almost nobody even talks about that shit anymore.

We don’t have the luxury of letting ideological movements moderate by learning from experience any more.

Please give me a break. Your messianic fervour is a little tiring, and I really don’t see how you are any less an ideologue.

Accepting that women should be treated equally to men is, in my opinion, fundamental to a truly free society. I really don’t see how it can be otherwise, along with equal treatment of all regardless of skin colour or sexual orientation. Secular government that can provide a strong rule of law and that guarantees freedom of religion, valuing everyone equally, is likewise essential. Lastly freedom of speech and freedom of assembly is likewise critical.

What exactly do we not have the luxury of doing here? What are your concrete proposals for action?

All the Communist movements that did so much damage in the 20th century started off as “fringe movements”.

I see you don’t really know every much about why communism came about and why it completely failed to take hold in any first world country. Actually you don’t really seem to realize that fringe movements really don’t flourish in the first world democracies, let alone have much hope of gaining power without the necessary pre-condition of moderating towards mainstream thought.

1746

Maybe Caitlyn is getting more flack for being a conservative Republican because voting so clearly and obviously against your own interests is the type of hypocrisy that people hate.

Also the fact that Caitlyn happens to be in an enormously privileged situation doesn’t hurt. If she had no support structure, had limited power over her life, wasn’t a rich celebrity, lived with her parents who wanted to change her, and of course didn’t have TV show in which to tell her story in a carefully coordinated media blitz, she’d probably be feeling a lot like most other trans people.

But a lack of such self-awareness about ones’ own circumstances usually goes hand-in-hand with voting Republican, so big surprise I guess?

1747

The reason gamergate is still going is proof it was just push back against a toxic online culture dedicated to purging enemies, shutting down speech and anything they find offensive. Even some of the big anti gamergate players realise this now they too have been subject to the same accusations of *phobia and *isms. (Jesse Singal etc). I wouldn’t piss on the likes of Milo, Warpig, Sargon, Kern et al if they were on fire, but in part, they were right.

Quinns case was probably dropped as it could not win, as even Eugene Volokh was filing amicus briefs against her unconstitutional attempts to shut down Gjonis right to free speech.

1748

Gotta remember Caitlyn lives in Hollywood area, which is extremely socially left. It is not indictative of the US as a whole, and her world is disconnected from mainstream American reality. It might actually be true for her, even if it wouldn’t be true in 99% of the rest of the US.

Also being trans does not make you a paragon of virtue. I support people’s right to their gender identity, but if someone’s a shithead, they’re a shithead no matter what their preferences are.

1749

Odd, then, that gamergate did so by trying to shut down speech and anything they found offensive. Gamers are over was one of the early focal points, wasn’t it?

1750

All gamergate did was provide a toxic online culture to oppose a toxic online culture. They provide balance, little else. Gamergate would not exist without the identity warriors attempting to colonise and dominate gamer spaces.

1751

That’s way too high. Heck, you’ve got someone giving her flack in this very thread.

I’d estimate 95% of progressives would give her more flack for being a conservative Republican than for being trans. That’s, what, 40% of the US, give or take?

1752

The ultimate proof that GamerGate is a bullshit smokescreen: you can redefine the “movement” to be about anything you want at any time.

1753

It is reasonable to criticize someone based on their politics. It is not reasonable to criticize someone because of sexual orientation.

1754

Right, so the statement would be true in some/half/most of the country. Agreeing with that doesn’t mean Republicans are victims that need to be protected. It’s just a simple statement about the distribution/hierarchy of hate that may be worthy of reflection.

1755

Colonize? FFS, really? How about: some people making games want to make games that don’t fit the standard mold. How many people lost their shit over Gone Home due to a host of reasons. Yet that game wasn’t made by people ‘colonizing’ games, it was made by people already here who wanted a game featuring something different.

Colonization my ass, this was people getting all pissy because games were no longer catering exclusively to their tastes.

1756

Using your analogy, music that purports to have melody (compare: be supposedly for equality of treatment by any treating agency) but doesn’t have melody (compare: blocks opinion on account of a prejudice that its character is determined by group membership) is the problem.

Language, like prices, change over time. Change with it, or accept that you won’t be understood.

Of course language changes over time, but it doesn’t change by anyone’s fiat or “agreement” - or attempts at persuasive redefinition.

You have the right to free speech, but you don’t have the right to be heard.

Did I say I did? The block button is ready to hand for everyone.

Why do you care whether some stranger on the internet has an open mind regarding what you have to say? Particularly when you show every bit of dogmatism they do, in your own way.

Hmm, “dogmatism” - another word you evidently don’t understand the common meaning of. I’m sensing a pattern here ;)

When two groups are at an impasse, your Theory suggests the only result is Nuclear Armageddon. But that’s not true. The actual result is an end to communication.

Ah, the good old “tu quoque” tic. I don’t have a Theory of the kind I’ve been outlining, and I don’t think Armageddon is inevitable - it’s only inevitable if religious and quasi-religious ideologies continue unopposed (measure for measure) and eventually get political power. Opposition is a form of communication, communication doesn’t consist solely in terrified agreement.

1757

We’ll have to agree to disagree on Gamergate then.

Please give me a break. Your messianic fervour is a little tiring, and I really don’t see how you are any less an ideologue.

That’s because you’ve been infected with a mind-virus :D

Accepting that women should be treated equally to men is, in my opinion, fundamental to a truly free society. I really don’t see how it can be otherwise, along with equal treatment of all regardless of skin colour or sexual orientation. Secular government that can provide a strong rule of law and that guarantees freedom of religion, valuing everyone equally, is likewise essential. Lastly freedom of speech and freedom of assembly is likewise critical.

Whoa! Stop the press!

What exactly do we not have the luxury of doing here? What are your concrete proposals for action?

Mostly, laughing and pointing.

I see you don’t really know every much about why communism came about and why it completely failed to take hold in any first world country.

There was no such concept as “first world country” in those days. What you’re groping for is that the countries that Communism took charge of weren’t fully developed industrially.

Actually you don’t really seem to realize that fringe movements really don’t flourish in the first world democracies, let alone have much hope of gaining power without the necessary pre-condition of moderating towards mainstream thought.

Again, you’re naive. Remember, although Communism is the sub-topic in this minor digression, I’m not just talking about Communism. Fascism had purges and megadeaths too, and that had a hold in developed countries. Religion has has schisms and megadeaths too, and religions have a hold in developed countries. The problem is divisive religious and quasi-religious secular ideologies generally. We can’t afford to have them around any more.

1758

Oh I thought it was serious. Guess your concern really is overwrought.

There was no such concept as “first world country” in those days. What you’re groping for is that the countries that Communism took charge of weren’t fully developed industrially.

The concept completely applies. The idea of first world, second world, third world emerged as a short-hand way to categorize the level of development and stability of a country. There were absolutely first second and third world countries before the terms were coined, and it is a useful if simplistic descriptor.

Again, you’re naive. Remember, although Communism is the sub-topic in this minor digression, I’m not just talking about Communism. Fascism had purges and megadeaths too, and that had a hold in developed countries. Religion has has schisms and megadeaths too, and religions have a hold in developed countries. The problem is divisive religious and quasi-religious secular ideologies generally. We can’t afford to have them around any more.

So all religion has to go, right? Nationalism also. Republicanism. Conservatism. What else would you purge from society and how will you do it?

1759

Hopefully not telephone sanitizers. We know how that story ends.

1760

Neither music nor words purport anything. Someone plays a piece, you can decide whether it’s music or not, and they can disagree.

Likewise, someone uses the word “racism”, you can decide they are talking about prejudice in isolation from power, and they can disagree.

Of course language changes over time, but it doesn’t change by anyone’s fiat or “agreement” - or attempts at persuasive redefinition.

Words change in meaning according to the needs of the community that uses them. Some words have vastly different meanings depending on their audience.

If you don’t think the usage makes sense, then maybe you weren’t the intended audience.

Did I say I did? The block button is ready to hand for everyone.

Precisely. Why do you think that button is less likely to be used than the one that starts a nuclear war?

Hmm, “dogmatism” - another word you evidently don’t understand the common meaning of.

Here is a dictionary definition. By your reasoning, I know all I need to know.

it’s only inevitable if religious and quasi-religious ideologies continue unopposed (measure for measure) and eventually get political power.

Every ideology that’s ever achieved and maintained power has to some extent sacrificed dogmatism for pragmatism, from the Bolsheviks to the Ayatollahs.

But suppose I’m wrong and your nightmare scenario comes to pass: the Earth really is divided into factions led by Lady Deirdre, Sister Miriam, Academician Zakharov, and CEO Morgan. As much fun as a military victory might be on Alpha Centauri, history has shown us what incompatible ideologies do on Earth. They nearly always tune each other out, shout louder at themselves, and focus on a transcendence victory.