sparr: (cellular automata)
Trigger warning

"Your definition is useless to me". I find myself saying this a lot. People interpret it as an insult or a dismissal. It is probably both, but that doesn’t stop it from also being a practical message that is important to convey.

When you and I are disagreeing over the meaning of a word or the value of a word having meaning at all, part of my position is usually based on my practical need for a word to mean something useful. By useful, I mean that I can put that meaning to some use, potentially including uses that we both agree are desirable.

Whether we are talking about a verb or a noun or an adjective, the purpose of any word is to differentiate between things that match that word and things that don’t match that word. “Rain” means liquid water naturally falling from the sky, and situations that aren’t liquid water naturally falling from the sky aren’t “rain”. “Jump” means propelling yourself into the air, and actions that don’t propel yourself into the air aren’t “jumping”. When I say it is or isn’t raining, or that I did or did not jump, those definitions help you understand the state of reality that I am describing. If you want or need information about whether liquid water is naturally falling from the sky then our shared definition of “rain” allows me to convey that information to you using that word.

The first category of useless definitions are definitions based on things that haven’t happened yet or can’t be known yet. If I were to say that “rain” only includes falling water that reaches the ground, and then we went to the top of a tall building and observed water falling from the sky, we would be unable to classify it as “rain” or “not rain” because we don’t know yet whether it will reach the ground or evaporate/freeze before it gets there. That definition of “rain” would be useless to us. Doubly so, as not only could we not accurately describe our observation, but someone else using a more common definition might tell us that it’s rain and we make a mistaken conclusion about the water reaching the ground below us. This category includes definitions of the word “consent” or “rape” that are subjective or non-deterministic. If your definition of those words leads to “you can’t know whether that sexual act you’re engaging in right now is consensual or rape” being a valid statement, then your definition is useless to me. And, again, I mean that in the most literal sense. There is no use to which I can put that definition, even in pursuit of our [presumably] shared goal of avoiding rape. Your definition actually reduces my ability to communicate by eliminating or making ambiguous part of my vocabulary.

The second category of useless definitions include words that mean exactly and only what the speaker wants them to mean. This category frequently includes words like “art” or “artist”, “pornography”, “right” or “wrong” or “good” or “bad”, and “enterprise”. More controversially, and the inspiration for this paragraph, it includes trans-inclusive definitions of “man” and “woman”. While I am supportive of these definitions, that does not stop me from categorizing them as useless. As these definitions are adopted, the information content of the words drops towards zero. When you tell me “Pat is a man”, do you intend to convey any information via this statement? If so, you must be using some definition of “man” other than the circular one of “anyone who identifies as a man”. If not, why say it at all?

I am not immediately seeking comment here, although it is welcome. The primary purpose of this note is for me to link to when this concept comes up in future discussions.
sparr: (cellular automata)
I'm trying to wrap my head around the social justice definition of "racism" (and other -isms) and have failed to successfully research the topic, or to glean effective insight from others' comments on my previous discussions. Here is my latest attempt to rephrase my confusion.

On average, around the world, Japanese people are discriminated against by Caucasian people. Attempts to eliminate oppression and discrimination are rightfully aimed at this situation.

However, in Japan, a small subset of the world, the situation is reversed. Japanese people hold most/all of the power in a given situation, and Caucasian people are discriminated against.

I can accept the idea that a single black person without power/authority who discriminates against white people in America is not racism.

I cannot accept the idea that a hundred million Japanese people WITH power/authority who discriminate against white people in Japan is not racism.

If you disagree with me about the situation in Japan being racism, then we are simply speaking a different language, and your definition of racism isn't useful to me in any practical capacity. I am unable to make effective decisions for addressing the situation based on that definition.

If, however, you agree with me about Japan, (and about the other case, where agreement is more likely) then I need your help to figure out where the lines between the two cases are. I need to be able to look at a situation that's in between those two and figure out whether it's racism or not. Help?
sparr: (cellular automata)
You: "Murder is bad because the sky is blue."
Me: "What you just said is wrong."
You: "Why do you think murder is good?"
Me: ...

You: "Murder is bad because the sky is orange."
Me: "The sky is not orange."
You: "Why do you think murder is good?"
Me: ...

These two examples represent a fundamental failure of communication that I'm trying to figure out how to address when and where it happens, without confusing people further. It took me a long time to figure out that a lot of people can't tell the difference between me contradicting their argument or premise and me contradicting their conclusion. Since that dawned on me, I've only ever managed to successfully navigate this conversational space by accident. Starting from "Murder is bad because the sky is [blue/orange]", how do I get to a position where you understand the following things:

1) I agree with you that the sky is blue / I disagree with you that the sky is orange.

2) I agree with you that murder is bad.

3) The statements I have made that do not include the word "murder" are not about murder

Anecdotally, I can report that simply breaking the statement apart into those components does not have the desired effect. If anything, using more words in such a straightforward way makes things worse. Actually naming the logical fallacy being employed, more so. So, I am looking for different words to use.
sparr: (cellular automata)
I have a number of friends who describe themselves as asexual, in one form or another. I've heard the term defined in a few ways, mostly boiling down to something like the first noun definition from google, "a person who has no sexual feelings or desires".

Read more... )
If you place negative value on all sexual activity, such that you avoid it in circumstances where the net value is otherwise positive, and your partner asking you to have sex is mostly/always a no, then you are not asexual. You are antisexual (or some other word that I am not familiar with). If you want "asexual" to describe that situation, then there's a lot of work to be done on the popular definition of the term, including the definition actively promoted in pro-asexuality literature and events.

(This note may be revised based on feedback.)

Profile

sparr: (Default)
Sparr

June 2017

S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314 151617
18192021222324
252627282930 

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 23rd, 2017 04:39 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios