When misfortune strikes close to home, I try to avoid letting it cloud my judgment. Perhaps my family and friends are unrepresentative or unlucky. The fact that they suffer from Problem X does not show that Problem X is in fact important. I strive to focus on the objectively Big Problems.
That might be fair if this was something he was going through right now, but this happened in his youth, and from what I can tell he's worked past it and learned a lot from it, and the only reason he shared it was that he felt he was strong enough to. He wanted people to know just how dark of a place he was in. I don't think you can hold people's trauma and periods of instability against them forever, do you?
Besides, this is just a word game on some level. Scott Aaronson thinks the "motte" definition of feminism is more useful; Bryan Caplan think the "bailey" is most accurate.
If the definition of feminist is "everyone", then it's meaningless.
For it to have any meaning, saying you're a feminist ought to transmit information about yourself that would impact another persons assessment of you.
To still call oneself a feminist after all that (I am not going to read all that drama, I can guess at it pretty quick) and generally be such a weasel, that's pretty cowardly behavior. At a certain point you're so pathetic you asking to get bullied.
I don't know why these sorts of people like such vague definitions. "Men and women should have equal rights and obligations." What obligations are we talking about here? I think you could take that to mean anything you want, which means someone will use that definition to advance positions you don't like. It's like the "social equality" part of the definition in the last post. What the heck is "social equality"!? To me, it looks like a giant trojan horse to get people to ignore radical leftist ideas because "you wouldn't want deny women the vote, would you? You must be a feminist!" I guess you can always No True Scotsman those people, but don't call me a feminist no matter the definition you slap on.
It is difficult to credit anything Aaronson says about social issues when he has already explicitly stated he will lie for convenience/to save his skin (his blog post the Kolmogorov Option). Thus, while I like his blog and writings and what I know of him as a person a great deal, I just don't see much benefit in engaging him here. His heart is not in it.
Sure, I guess maybe that’s true. Nonetheless, given that we are surrounded by bad people, it doesn’t make sense to ding Scott in particular just because he’s honest about being “bad”.
I might not say repulsed by, but rather attracted to weakness. The same way a shark is attracted to blood in the water. Or a bully is attracted to weakness.
I imagine they're no less repulsed by Bryan than Scott, but they can get apologies and maybe even donations to the cause out of Scott, so there's more incentive to hector him.
> I take feminists at their word
lmao
what's that supposed to mean?
That might be fair if this was something he was going through right now, but this happened in his youth, and from what I can tell he's worked past it and learned a lot from it, and the only reason he shared it was that he felt he was strong enough to. He wanted people to know just how dark of a place he was in. I don't think you can hold people's trauma and periods of instability against them forever, do you?
Besides, this is just a word game on some level. Scott Aaronson thinks the "motte" definition of feminism is more useful; Bryan Caplan think the "bailey" is most accurate.
No, it’s an unfair summary.
If the definition of feminist is "everyone", then it's meaningless.
For it to have any meaning, saying you're a feminist ought to transmit information about yourself that would impact another persons assessment of you.
To still call oneself a feminist after all that (I am not going to read all that drama, I can guess at it pretty quick) and generally be such a weasel, that's pretty cowardly behavior. At a certain point you're so pathetic you asking to get bullied.
I don't know why these sorts of people like such vague definitions. "Men and women should have equal rights and obligations." What obligations are we talking about here? I think you could take that to mean anything you want, which means someone will use that definition to advance positions you don't like. It's like the "social equality" part of the definition in the last post. What the heck is "social equality"!? To me, it looks like a giant trojan horse to get people to ignore radical leftist ideas because "you wouldn't want deny women the vote, would you? You must be a feminist!" I guess you can always No True Scotsman those people, but don't call me a feminist no matter the definition you slap on.
It is difficult to credit anything Aaronson says about social issues when he has already explicitly stated he will lie for convenience/to save his skin (his blog post the Kolmogorov Option). Thus, while I like his blog and writings and what I know of him as a person a great deal, I just don't see much benefit in engaging him here. His heart is not in it.
I dunno, this seems like a questionable critique. Pretty much everyone would lie to save their skin.
Sure, I guess maybe that’s true. Nonetheless, given that we are surrounded by bad people, it doesn’t make sense to ding Scott in particular just because he’s honest about being “bad”.
Because honesty is so important, Scott should lie about how honest he is or would be if he had to lie to save his skin??
May I ask, what's wrong with being "boycotted in all academic and intellectual fora." Some people would say that's a badge of Honor.
The assertive use of the usage of the term 'feminist' against its common usage, reminds me of the American general asserting that the US army is the mujahideen: https://nitter.hu/ampol_moment/status/1559242160603635716#m.
This explains a lot of why Bryan attacks a strawman of "feminism" -- people identifying as "feminist" were mean to a friend on Twitter.
Understandable, but totally mistaken about the real world.
https://www.mattball.org/2022/09/equality-repost.html
My sarcasm detection meter was pegged throughout.
Isn't this just a bunch of strawmen?
That's the point? It's a post with all the strawmen that members of the Cathedral will use to deplatform Caplan...
The best thing Caplan can do to not get deplatformed is what he is already doing. Not apologizing.
Feminist pick on Scott because he projects weakness and they are repulsed by weakness.
I might not say repulsed by, but rather attracted to weakness. The same way a shark is attracted to blood in the water. Or a bully is attracted to weakness.
I imagine they're no less repulsed by Bryan than Scott, but they can get apologies and maybe even donations to the cause out of Scott, so there's more incentive to hector him.
I think there is a hindbrain female response that is disgusted by weakness.