We also all know I’m not a utilitarian!!
― all cats are beautiful (silby), Saturday, 11 July 2020 20:47 (three years ago) link
if we are having a discussion about freeze peach, other rights, and harms and sufferings then you can't take utilitarians' terms and ideas into account even if you don't agree with them, they're just basic to the controversy as it exists in present-day society
― j., Saturday, 11 July 2020 20:48 (three years ago) link
Feel like “rights” can survive as a concept outside of the consequentialist fishtank
― all cats are beautiful (silby), Saturday, 11 July 2020 20:51 (three years ago) link
certainly, but the fishtank often supplies tools for critiquing existing codifications/tacit understandings of rights.
― j., Saturday, 11 July 2020 20:54 (three years ago) link
Idk surely we’re far afield at this point, my only real point is that I assume whatever this letter says is stupid and I don’t object to anyone hassling its presumably mostly rich, comfortable, and famous signatories for signing stupid letters.
― all cats are beautiful (silby), Saturday, 11 July 2020 20:57 (three years ago) link
And, I guess, that I don’t understand why anyone would have so much time as cardamon does for worrying about how poor Jo Rowling, wealthy intellectual property magnate, feels about being told she’s a dummy.
― all cats are beautiful (silby), Saturday, 11 July 2020 21:00 (three years ago) link
READ WHAT I WROTE… AND THEN READ WHAT YOU WROTE
― j., Saturday, 11 July 2020 21:00 (three years ago) link
No I’m already tired of reading.
― all cats are beautiful (silby), Saturday, 11 July 2020 21:02 (three years ago) link
ah well it's back to shitposting i guess
― j., Saturday, 11 July 2020 21:02 (three years ago) link
“Back”?
― all cats are beautiful (silby), Saturday, 11 July 2020 21:03 (three years ago) link
charity my man charity
― j., Saturday, 11 July 2020 21:03 (three years ago) link
the perfect union of 19th century enlightenment philosophy and shitposting, at least achieved
― Kate (rushomancy), Saturday, 11 July 2020 21:04 (three years ago) link
I mean I’m not gonna front like I’m never mad and I think this is all just a gas, all this posting, but I’m pretty dumb and I mostly post to see what words look like in an order, I’m v glad you and the Enlightenment thinkers are so confident in universal principles but I’m just trying to figure out my own if u feel me
― all cats are beautiful (silby), Saturday, 11 July 2020 21:06 (three years ago) link
any principles are already on the road to being universal principles
― j., Saturday, 11 July 2020 21:08 (three years ago) link
Guess I shouldn’t have any.
― all cats are beautiful (silby), Saturday, 11 July 2020 21:08 (three years ago) link
I mean I ascribe to a particularist religion, it’s against my religion to believe everyone should follow the principles of my religion
― all cats are beautiful (silby), Saturday, 11 July 2020 21:10 (three years ago) link
xps yes you were not meant to disagree with me because i am trying to reframe what i presume is one of your beliefs so that you acknowledge it is in tension with the other line you seem to be taking, that sometimes for the sake of some ends some people can be (substitute most apt option here) written off, destroyed, abandoned to the twitter mob, removed from the circle of concern about sufferings unjust or otherwise, etc.
as far as i was following it the latter is the sort of thing that was giving some itt pause.
― j.
ok i'm just going to ignore all the posts after this because i can't follow them.
no, nobody _should_ be just blithely written off as unimportant or "unmutual" or toxic or whatever. all lives matter, humans have fundamental inalienable dignity, yadda yadda yadda, you want me to affirm all those liberal nostrums i will. what i'm saying is that i do not have the _luxury_ of governing my life entirely by abstract ideals, that i value a particular expression of an abstract ideal based mostly on the results it produces, particularly and especially as those results bear on me and the people i care about. you want to hold me accountable for those actions, you want to hold me accountable for violating liberal norms, well, you just go right ahead. based on my observation, i believe those norms have, in practice, failed, and anybody who clings to them, without question, as the only hope for DUMPLINGS! is someone whose allyship i trust and value, and for that matter someone whose judgement i fear, about as much as mitt romney.
that's not an inflexible or universal belief. however, tut-tutting at me about how i am failing _your_ fucking Universal Human Principles does nothing to persuade me.
― Kate (rushomancy), Saturday, 11 July 2020 22:01 (three years ago) link
i am tired, motherfucking tired, of public intellectuals talking about "justice". fucking show me it, show me what your "justice" looks like, and i'll tell you whether it's something i can get behind or not. how's that sound?
― Kate (rushomancy), Saturday, 11 July 2020 22:10 (three years ago) link
Basically want to say that Kate's recent posts in this thread are justification for the existence of this stupid thread.
― Tōne Locatelli Romano (PBKR), Saturday, 11 July 2020 23:07 (three years ago) link
There are flaws in our notions of impartiality, agrees the liberal, but why are we throwing the baby out with the bath water ? Don’t you also agree that there is an approaching-good impartiality?
Our impartiality, says the conservative, will naturally lead to white nationalist outcomes
The “flaws” in our notions of impartiality are not flaws but are actually how the system works, that these are its intended outcomes, and the liberal and conservative are playing a parlor game debating whether it’s a bad system with intent or by accident
― ILX’s bad boy (D-40), Saturday, 11 July 2020 23:51 (three years ago) link
*those are its effective outcomes. The conservative and liberal debate if it’s by intent or accident
― ILX’s bad boy (D-40), Sunday, 12 July 2020 00:02 (three years ago) link
if jkr had started posting white supremacist stuff (maybe vaguely disguised as 'scientific' 'just asking questions about racial bias in IQ' nonsense to seem a little more respectable) and got the same angry pushback with some of it being straight up abusive, would cardamon still be saying 'she's bad, sure but people should have been a bit nicer about it'
― ufo, Sunday, 12 July 2020 00:20 (three years ago) link
Mill is an ass, utilitarianism is colonial bullshit, and all current systems of law in the West occur under the aegis of state violence. Gtfoh
― blue light or electric light (the table is the table), Sunday, 12 July 2020 03:00 (three years ago) link
Like one of the most foundational texts of the philosophy of law in the US states that legal interpretation occurs in a field of pain and death. It's not some mystery--
― blue light or electric light (the table is the table), Sunday, 12 July 2020 03:03 (three years ago) link
How is utilitarianism colonial bullshit?
― JRN, Sunday, 12 July 2020 03:32 (three years ago) link
A schism exists between feminist theory, queer theory and trans theory. Eg. gender-based rights vs. sex-based rights when applied to female-only safe spaces like prisons, rape shelters etc; how and when trans people should compete in sex-segregated sports; age of consent for minors to transition; & a couple of other topics. There are similar nuances in the BLM conversation which are beyond stating if you are for or against. It's more complicated than that.
Supporters of the Harpers article see that it's not a request by the signatories to not be flamed but that these conversations have become difficult to have in left-ish groups such as academia, the arts, non-profits, unions and so on. Meanwhile the right-wing look on & laugh.
ILX leans left and it's unlikely that there could be a thread on gender theory here. Several posts are already saying that this is a stupid thread - a reaction to some posts getting close to difficult viewpoints being aired. It's worth thinking about.
― everything, Sunday, 12 July 2020 03:34 (three years ago) link
Hmm
― Temporary Erogenous Zone (jim in vancouver), Sunday, 12 July 2020 03:45 (three years ago) link
Many of the signatories are not anti-trans and it seems odd to frame it in that way. Essentially older generation liberals who are out of step with younger generations' ideas and resent being flamed on Twitter
― Temporary Erogenous Zone (jim in vancouver), Sunday, 12 July 2020 03:53 (three years ago) link
I doubt any signatories think its about being flamed on Twitter.
― everything, Sunday, 12 July 2020 04:05 (three years ago) link
― Temporary Erogenous Zone (jim in vancouver), Sunday, 12 July 2020 04:16 (three years ago) link
the issue is that the contents of the letter itself are fairly benign (if uselessly vague) but a significant numbers of signatories are the sort of bad faith actors who are trying to use claims of free speech to silence criticism of them, with it seeming like many of those signing it in good faith were duped into it through claims that it was 'promoting tolerance and racial inclusion' etc. and only being told that chomsky etc. were signing it. the contents of the letter do not exist in a vacuum
examples of said bad faith actors are jk rowling who has threatened to sue people who've called her transphobic and bari weiss who rose to prominence calling for pro-palestinian professors to be fired, but there's many many others
also 'sex-based rights' as a term only started being used ~5 years ago to justify excluding trans people, it's not a meaningful phrase outside of that context, so i'm very wary of someone bringing it up. the people advocating against trans inclusion are typically uninterested in nuance, only insisting that trans people are a danger to women, that biology is paramount and immutable, that trans children are just confused gays being forced into it by their homophobic parents, etc.
― ufo, Sunday, 12 July 2020 04:19 (three years ago) link
Multiple signatories have tried to get people fired for things they said on the internet or threatened to sue when criticized so I'm not sure it can be easily discounted that this is a culture war salvo not unrelated to online discourse on social media. They may just be so lacking in self awareness that they dont see the hypocrisy but I think they're just being machiavellian
― Temporary Erogenous Zone (jim in vancouver), Sunday, 12 July 2020 04:23 (three years ago) link
probably a mix of both
― ufo, Sunday, 12 July 2020 04:26 (three years ago) link
trying to use claims of free speech to silence criticism of them
are you sure they weren't using claims of free speech to answer criticism of them? this would be an extremely weak answer to any even halfway valid criticism, but at least it doesn't meet the standard of trying to actively silence the voices of others (which I'm not sure how that silencing could even be done short of threats).
― the unappreciated charisma of cows (Aimless), Sunday, 12 July 2020 04:38 (three years ago) link
― Donald Trump Also Sucks, Of Course (milo z), Sunday, 12 July 2020 05:28 (three years ago) link
Do you have a citation for that?
― everything, Sunday, 12 July 2020 05:47 (three years ago) link
A schism exists between feminist theory, queer theory and trans theory. Eg. gender-based rights vs. sex-based rights when applied to female-only safe spaces like prisons, rape shelters etc; how and when trans people should compete in sex-segregated sports; age of consent for minors to transition; & a couple of other topics
i feel like the answers are so axiomatic that almost none of these are "conversations"
― mellon collie and the infinite bradness (BradNelson), Sunday, 12 July 2020 06:37 (three years ago) link
also ufo otm
― mellon collie and the infinite bradness (BradNelson), Sunday, 12 July 2020 06:39 (three years ago) link
people trying to have "debates" about these topics and present "difficult viewpoints" on them are ime almost always trying to undermine the womanhood of trans women
― mellon collie and the infinite bradness (BradNelson), Sunday, 12 July 2020 06:40 (three years ago) link
Before I go to bed I do want to offer that part of the reason that trans people are so troubling to certain liberal orthodoxies is that the very existence of trans lives is an attack on the western Aristotelian-Enlightenment metaphysical consensus. The transfeminist project is in explicit opposition to the foundations of European thought, and the fixity and reliability of its categories.
― all cats are beautiful (silby), Sunday, 12 July 2020 06:50 (three years ago) link
Which, I hasten to add, is good. Fuck a Aristotle
― all cats are beautiful (silby), Sunday, 12 July 2020 06:51 (three years ago) link
lol suarez died in 1617 your timeline might be a little garbled
― j., Sunday, 12 July 2020 07:07 (three years ago) link
I already told u I don’t actually read things
― all cats are beautiful (silby), Sunday, 12 July 2020 07:10 (three years ago) link
yet you persist in making sweeping pronouncements about the things that are in books
― j., Sunday, 12 July 2020 07:12 (three years ago) link
Well duh
― all cats are beautiful (silby), Sunday, 12 July 2020 07:13 (three years ago) link
What else is there to do, in life
― all cats are beautiful (silby), Sunday, 12 July 2020 07:14 (three years ago) link
On this messageboard, of all places, I should be humble?
― all cats are beautiful (silby), Sunday, 12 July 2020 07:15 (three years ago) link
gr8 contributions
― groovemaaan, Sunday, 12 July 2020 08:25 (three years ago) link
“safe spaces like prisons” wtf
― If you choose too long a name, your new display name will be truncated in (Left), Sunday, 12 July 2020 09:30 (three years ago) link
life comes at you fast pic.twitter.com/UwdWLzH0wb— saeen (@saeen90_) July 11, 2020
― xyzzzz__, Sunday, 12 July 2020 09:46 (three years ago) link