posted on November 26, 2018 11:10 PM by
u/completely-ineffable
51
u/Ambrose_bierce8948 pointsat 1543276361.000000
Yes. This is a good take and it is a net positive for “Rationalists”
like him to enunciate it. But, Yud really has a talent for still being a
self-satisfied ass even when he is engaging in basic human decency.
He's like a dorky, charmless Bill Maher.
He also seems worried that his cult is slipping away from him. A lot of slick hipster-fascists are getting a lot more mileage out of this shit than he ever did.
The danger of having a cult of personality based on your pseudointelligencia is that someone *better at it* than you will stroll along and sweep it all up.
This and the time he said neoreactionaries aren’t even worth arguing
with are the reason I don’t dislike him as much as Scott Alexander.
Surprised he never got blowback for the neoreactionary thing, I was
expecting a flood of “Can’t believe CUCKowski is a cathedralist enemy of
free speech” takes but it didn’t happen, I guess because they know
feigned moral outrage over free speech wouldn’t work on him.
> Surprised he never got blowback for the neoreactionary thing,
A whole bunch of these people IRL won't talk to him any more.
That said, the NRx ideas in the rationalist subculture are way more blatant these days, and that's SSC's doing.
I mean, anyone who has even just taken like, an undergrad course in
philosophy of language or even just a course that had some later
Wittgenstein should understand these basic things about how reference
works. “Water is h20” examples etc etc.
Also the idea that people are “acting like pronuns are facts” is
phrased in a kinda bizarre way but like I understand what he means. But
what would it even mean to say a pronoun is a fact or is not a
fact? That’s just like literally incoherent. What a weird guy.
No, those people are arguing that it is a fact that pronouns refer to sex. I'm purely commenting on the phrasing. Like, I don't think pronouns are the kinds of things that can **be facts** or **not be facts** anymore than dogs or trees can **be facts** or **not be facts**. Do you know what I'm saying? I'm just nitpicking. Only whole propositions can be evaluated as a fact or not / true or false, not noun phrases.
Is the idea that the use of a gendered pronoun presupposes the statement "x is male/female"? Because that's trivially true, the question is what it means to be be male or female (social construction blah blah).
Again, I just think saying "pronouns are facts" or "pronouns are not facts" is incoherent and really bizarre to me.
Imagine having a debate about whether chairs are facts. What the fuck does that even mean? It actually infuriates me just trying to process it.
EDIT: Can someone explain the downvotes? No one else thinks the phrasing "pronouns are facts" or "dogs are facts" is incoherent? It can be a fact THAT pronouns refer to sex, or a fact THAT pronouns do not refer to sex, but to say that pronouns are facts isn't a complete thought any more than "skies are facts" is.
I already said that I understand what he means, so you pointing out that it's clear what he means is irrelevant. It just sounds bizarre to me and I don't like it lol. I understand that it's shorthand, but I'm highlighting what a bizarre sounding shorthand it is. Yes I'm nitpicking. I'm allowed to nitpick.
Also, I meant when used to refer to people. Surely gender exists in people, the question is the nature of it. That they are used to refer to objects without gender is derivative on their primary use (in english).
> But what would it even mean to say a pronoun is a fact *or is not a fact*? That's just like literally incoherent.
I see you've never encountered any transphobes, which actually means you're kind of lucky. I do hope you keep up that streak.
No no no, you've completely missed the point, please read the rest of the thread. I know plenty of people who think that it is a fact that gender pronouns refer to chromosomal sex when used to refer to people (transphobes). And I know of people who believe it is not a fact that pronouns refer in such a way (reasonable people).
My point is that to say "pronouns are facts" or "pronouns are not facts" is incoherent like if you were to say "blankets are facts" or "ghosts are facts." It's not a complete thought. There *are* facts about pronouns, the question is what the facts are. Saying pronouns are/aren't facts is incoherent. It's a point about grammar / semantics.
I think what he's saying, filtered through Yudkowskyese, is to be decent to trans people for the sake of being decent (because one is not standing for truth by doing otherwise). There's that parenthetical in there, so it's perhaps not ideal. But it's as close as we can reasonably expect from him.
Are you FUCKING KIDDING ME? The Bay is easily the most trans-unfriendly place I've lived. You get so many fucking stares every fucking day. I think it's that people in the Bay know to actually look for trans people, whereas the rest of the planet doesn't even know we exist--meaning they leave us the fuck alone and judge us on our merits more often than bay people do.
Yes. This is a good take and it is a net positive for “Rationalists” like him to enunciate it. But, Yud really has a talent for still being a self-satisfied ass even when he is engaging in basic human decency.
Take the W’s where you can get em boys and girls, I’ll never sneer at somebody recognizing nuance even if they’re doing it to be a smart ass
Lmao at the chuds putting forward the thesis that People Identify As Women to Lower Their Insurance Premiums
This and the time he said neoreactionaries aren’t even worth arguing with are the reason I don’t dislike him as much as Scott Alexander.
Surprised he never got blowback for the neoreactionary thing, I was expecting a flood of “Can’t believe CUCKowski is a cathedralist enemy of free speech” takes but it didn’t happen, I guess because they know feigned moral outrage over free speech wouldn’t work on him.
Yudith Butler
I mean, anyone who has even just taken like, an undergrad course in philosophy of language or even just a course that had some later Wittgenstein should understand these basic things about how reference works. “Water is h20” examples etc etc.
Also the idea that people are “acting like pronuns are facts” is phrased in a kinda bizarre way but like I understand what he means. But what would it even mean to say a pronoun is a fact or is not a fact? That’s just like literally incoherent. What a weird guy.
but remember he’s doing it because he’s “making a stand on a hill of meaning in defense of validity”, what a proud logical warrior
try just being decent to trans people for the sake of being decent
A stopped clock is right twice a day.