How should we re-define the word "atheist"? It appears that 19% of Americans believe there is no god, but only 4% identify as atheists and 5% as agnostics.
And while the number of people who don't believe in *any* higher power or spiritual force is close to 9%, it's less than half of the self-described agnostics, and only about 80% of the self-described atheists, leaving a substantial number who don't identify as either.
The chasm of meaning between the dictionary definition and how people actually use the term is what I regularly cite as the best example of the motte-and-bailey fallacy. If feminism really did just meant 'equality of the sexes', virtually everyone outside of the Mullahs of Iran and the like would be a feminist.
I’m curious what you think of the definition of atheism. Etymologically it just means without theism. Most atheists in my experience agree with this. Most also agree with an agnostic idea that one can’t really know but they themselves simply don’t hold any theistic beliefs. Those that do also oppose religion will generally say that is a separate stance. Yet public view is skewed by the loudest voices: strident activists. As a result, many people without theistic beliefs call them selves agnostic or simply non religious and say they are not atheists. Should non atheists be able to define the term or should we ask atheists what they mean by it?
It’s amusing that the motte definition suffers from another corruption of the ordinary use of language because Critical Social Justice advocates also have an unusual definition of woman. Often, this is not defined biologically but on the basis of some sort of role women play in society and stereotypes about their behavior. If full social, political, and economic equality was achieved, it would seem there might be no distinguishing feature of womanhood if you believe in the blank slatist idea that perfect equality would result in equal outcomes.
Would I be applying Bryan's criteria consistently if I said
1. Most people say "capitalism" or "the free market" is something other than what the official definitions are.
2. While the "capitalism" and "the free market" have anodyne definitions that everyone would agree with, the reality is there are a certain subset of people, who, calling themselves "capitalists" espouse pernicious theories that are often in conflict with the generic, generally agreeable definitions.
3. Thus, I must write a book saying "Don't Be a Capitalist"?
This is very confused. The dictionary definition implies your definition. Of course, you strangely and awkwardly define it as 'men are treated more fairly' rather than women are oppressed, but I guess your way sounds better for your nonsense thesis. It's obviously an implication of those definitions that women don't have full equality, therefore there needs to be advocacy to reach that equality.
Since you have trouble understanding this. we can make it explicit, and use the definition philosophers use:
i. (Normative) Men and women are entitled to equal rights and respect.
ii. (Descriptive) Women are currently disadvantaged with respect to rights and respect, compared with men […in such and such respects and due to such and such conditions…].
These are not two different definitions; feminism is defined as both claims. The first part derives naturally from every common system of normative ethics - consequentialism, deontology, contract ethics, etc. Consequentialism, for example, leads to equal consideration of interests, which of course implies equality between the sexes.
And the second part is an uncontroversial empirical claim. I guess you deny the second part. Which doesn't help your case, as denying either part is an embarrassing denial of reality.
Also, there are clearly other explanations for why a large percentage of people won't identify as feminist. The only women who deny the second part are right-wing political ideologues. We've made it socially "uncomfortable" to accept feminism, despite it being obviously true. So, you have the "Orwellian situation" exactly backwards, although idk if i would use such hysterical language.
Sorry, Pr. Caplan, but I think you're wrong on this one. The dictionary definition isn't simply "the belief in equality of the sexes", but rather, "advocacy of women's rights on the basis of equality of the sexes". If you believe that the sexes are equal, but you don't advocate for women's rights, then I don't think you're a feminist.
In this case, they're falling back to the anodyne dictionary definition. Cynically, the dictionary writers all being good leftists, that is why the dictionary has it phrased like it is.
For what it is worth.. after a long discussion with my wife, who holds strong views on this (and many topics).. we thought that 'feminism' might accord with the dictionary.. but that a 'feminist'.. is someone who holds the generally unfair view.. ie that a feminist is someone who believes in feminism.. but that we are not there yet....
Also.. (just to put a spoke in the rhetorical wheel..).. what is 'fair'....
the advocacy of men's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes.
or
XXX is the belief in full social, economic, and political equality for men?
Since 93% of prison inmates and 90% of people killed by guns are male, it seems to be some room for more "social equality". But there is no word for supporting parity in prisons.
And, since the Oxford dictionary describes "machismo" as:
Machismo:
aggressive male behavior that emphasizes the importance of being strong rather than being intelligent and sensitive
Oxford
What would be the English word for
"aggressive female behavior that emphasizes the importance and necessity of (positive) discrimination (anybody sees the oxymoron here?) favoring women in order to achieve (impose?) the equality of outcomes in the social, economic, and political realms (but only where women actually "score" worse)"
If "feminism" follows the definition provided by Erik, what is the word for the aforementioned behavior? (which definitely exists)
“Defining feminism as 'the advocacy of women’s rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes' is advocacy disguised as lexicology.” True, but the other official definition—a call for social, economic, and political *equality*--gives us a much less bland definition. Do even actual feminists demand *economic equality*--which must mean at least equal wealth and income? That would make them hard-core socialists. And social equality—which must mean equal popularity, prestige, and acceptance in all sorts of informal relationships—is usually not demanded even by hard-core socialists. If political equality were just equal rights to vote and hold office, it would be uncontroversial; but perhaps *being in prison* is a *political* status, and a demand for equal rates of imprisonment would very much be extreme.
My impression is that these official definitions are just *careless and thoughtless*, which gives a slightly different justification for your ignoring them.
>We’re not there yet. I still have no trouble articulating my heretical thoughts.
We are there on the topic of class inequality and racial temperament. Activists clearly seek to put us there on race intelligence (by wiping away concepts of race and intelligence) and sex/gender (men can get pregnant, women have penises -- classic doublespeak right in your face).
In fact, we are partially there on the topic of sex differences, which is why your essay only goes half way. Similarly, in an unauthorized sequel to 1984 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_(Dalos_novel)), Big Brother dies and Oceania is invaded by Eurasia. Ingsoc begins to crumble, but refutations of it are half-hearted and laughable. They include things like "perhaps Outer Party members should be allowed to turn off Telescreen monitoring for 30 minutes a day". This was modeled off of late-Soviet era rebuttals of Communism. I often think about how accurate this depiction is to the real world when I see half-hearted refutations of Liberalism, such as rebuttals of feminism which are still desperate to defend woman's ephemeral "equality", as if "equality" is desirable, historical, or of any moral significance or truth value whatsoever (the reality is that it is merely an oppressive Liberal mind-control shibboleth, like the telescreen in Ingsoc).
How should we re-define the word "atheist"? It appears that 19% of Americans believe there is no god, but only 4% identify as atheists and 5% as agnostics.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/12/06/10-facts-about-atheists/
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2018/04/25/when-americans-say-they-believe-in-god-what-do-they-mean/
And while the number of people who don't believe in *any* higher power or spiritual force is close to 9%, it's less than half of the self-described agnostics, and only about 80% of the self-described atheists, leaving a substantial number who don't identify as either.
The chasm of meaning between the dictionary definition and how people actually use the term is what I regularly cite as the best example of the motte-and-bailey fallacy. If feminism really did just meant 'equality of the sexes', virtually everyone outside of the Mullahs of Iran and the like would be a feminist.
I’m curious what you think of the definition of atheism. Etymologically it just means without theism. Most atheists in my experience agree with this. Most also agree with an agnostic idea that one can’t really know but they themselves simply don’t hold any theistic beliefs. Those that do also oppose religion will generally say that is a separate stance. Yet public view is skewed by the loudest voices: strident activists. As a result, many people without theistic beliefs call them selves agnostic or simply non religious and say they are not atheists. Should non atheists be able to define the term or should we ask atheists what they mean by it?
It’s amusing that the motte definition suffers from another corruption of the ordinary use of language because Critical Social Justice advocates also have an unusual definition of woman. Often, this is not defined biologically but on the basis of some sort of role women play in society and stereotypes about their behavior. If full social, political, and economic equality was achieved, it would seem there might be no distinguishing feature of womanhood if you believe in the blank slatist idea that perfect equality would result in equal outcomes.
Would I be applying Bryan's criteria consistently if I said
1. Most people say "capitalism" or "the free market" is something other than what the official definitions are.
2. While the "capitalism" and "the free market" have anodyne definitions that everyone would agree with, the reality is there are a certain subset of people, who, calling themselves "capitalists" espouse pernicious theories that are often in conflict with the generic, generally agreeable definitions.
3. Thus, I must write a book saying "Don't Be a Capitalist"?
Bryan chooses a strawman - the meanest "feminists" on Twitter, and fights that.
In reality, if you dress a baby as a boy, they are treated differently than if dressed as a girl. The same baby!
More:
https://www.mattball.org/2022/09/equality-repost.html
Thanks all!
Good to see you taking semantic argumentation seriously, Bry. Welcome to the party!
This is very confused. The dictionary definition implies your definition. Of course, you strangely and awkwardly define it as 'men are treated more fairly' rather than women are oppressed, but I guess your way sounds better for your nonsense thesis. It's obviously an implication of those definitions that women don't have full equality, therefore there needs to be advocacy to reach that equality.
Since you have trouble understanding this. we can make it explicit, and use the definition philosophers use:
i. (Normative) Men and women are entitled to equal rights and respect.
ii. (Descriptive) Women are currently disadvantaged with respect to rights and respect, compared with men […in such and such respects and due to such and such conditions…].
This is from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminist-philosophy/
These are not two different definitions; feminism is defined as both claims. The first part derives naturally from every common system of normative ethics - consequentialism, deontology, contract ethics, etc. Consequentialism, for example, leads to equal consideration of interests, which of course implies equality between the sexes.
And the second part is an uncontroversial empirical claim. I guess you deny the second part. Which doesn't help your case, as denying either part is an embarrassing denial of reality.
Also, there are clearly other explanations for why a large percentage of people won't identify as feminist. The only women who deny the second part are right-wing political ideologues. We've made it socially "uncomfortable" to accept feminism, despite it being obviously true. So, you have the "Orwellian situation" exactly backwards, although idk if i would use such hysterical language.
Sorry, Pr. Caplan, but I think you're wrong on this one. The dictionary definition isn't simply "the belief in equality of the sexes", but rather, "advocacy of women's rights on the basis of equality of the sexes". If you believe that the sexes are equal, but you don't advocate for women's rights, then I don't think you're a feminist.
Now do "Libertarianism"!
What youre describing is a motte and bailey situation. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy
In this case, they're falling back to the anodyne dictionary definition. Cynically, the dictionary writers all being good leftists, that is why the dictionary has it phrased like it is.
For what it is worth.. after a long discussion with my wife, who holds strong views on this (and many topics).. we thought that 'feminism' might accord with the dictionary.. but that a 'feminist'.. is someone who holds the generally unfair view.. ie that a feminist is someone who believes in feminism.. but that we are not there yet....
Also.. (just to put a spoke in the rhetorical wheel..).. what is 'fair'....
Is there anything in your book that I can't get from a Jordan Peterson lecture?
If not, I guess you kicked a hornets nest for no reason.
I still support you but I'd like to know what your adding to the debate.
What would be the English word for:
the advocacy of men's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes.
or
XXX is the belief in full social, economic, and political equality for men?
Since 93% of prison inmates and 90% of people killed by guns are male, it seems to be some room for more "social equality". But there is no word for supporting parity in prisons.
And, since the Oxford dictionary describes "machismo" as:
Machismo:
aggressive male behavior that emphasizes the importance of being strong rather than being intelligent and sensitive
Oxford
What would be the English word for
"aggressive female behavior that emphasizes the importance and necessity of (positive) discrimination (anybody sees the oxymoron here?) favoring women in order to achieve (impose?) the equality of outcomes in the social, economic, and political realms (but only where women actually "score" worse)"
If "feminism" follows the definition provided by Erik, what is the word for the aforementioned behavior? (which definitely exists)
“Defining feminism as 'the advocacy of women’s rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes' is advocacy disguised as lexicology.” True, but the other official definition—a call for social, economic, and political *equality*--gives us a much less bland definition. Do even actual feminists demand *economic equality*--which must mean at least equal wealth and income? That would make them hard-core socialists. And social equality—which must mean equal popularity, prestige, and acceptance in all sorts of informal relationships—is usually not demanded even by hard-core socialists. If political equality were just equal rights to vote and hold office, it would be uncontroversial; but perhaps *being in prison* is a *political* status, and a demand for equal rates of imprisonment would very much be extreme.
My impression is that these official definitions are just *careless and thoughtless*, which gives a slightly different justification for your ignoring them.
>We’re not there yet. I still have no trouble articulating my heretical thoughts.
We are there on the topic of class inequality and racial temperament. Activists clearly seek to put us there on race intelligence (by wiping away concepts of race and intelligence) and sex/gender (men can get pregnant, women have penises -- classic doublespeak right in your face).
In fact, we are partially there on the topic of sex differences, which is why your essay only goes half way. Similarly, in an unauthorized sequel to 1984 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_(Dalos_novel)), Big Brother dies and Oceania is invaded by Eurasia. Ingsoc begins to crumble, but refutations of it are half-hearted and laughable. They include things like "perhaps Outer Party members should be allowed to turn off Telescreen monitoring for 30 minutes a day". This was modeled off of late-Soviet era rebuttals of Communism. I often think about how accurate this depiction is to the real world when I see half-hearted refutations of Liberalism, such as rebuttals of feminism which are still desperate to defend woman's ephemeral "equality", as if "equality" is desirable, historical, or of any moral significance or truth value whatsoever (the reality is that it is merely an oppressive Liberal mind-control shibboleth, like the telescreen in Ingsoc).