Opinion of Memphis

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Only late Wittgenstein is pretentious, early is the vox populi.... 

Seriously though, you've been cloistered up in academia for too long if you expect people to talk like this. Sure it can be all rather interesting, but you narrow and alienate your audience when you are actually speaking about real issues.

I don't expect people to talk like this, or understand me when I do outside specific contexts, of which demonstrating willingness to pass judgment upon the psychological and epistemic sources of other people's beliefs very much is one. You're right that I have, however, been cloistered up in academia for too long.

[patrick1]

Only late Wittgenstein is pretentious, early is the vox populi.... 

Seriously though, you've been cloistered up in academia for too long if you expect people to talk like this. Sure it can be all rather interesting, but you narrow and alienate your audience when you are actually speaking about real issues.

I don't expect people to talk like this, or understand me when I do outside specific contexts, of which demonstrating willingness to pontificate upon the psychological and epistemic sources of other people's beliefs very much is one. You're right that I have, however, been cloistered up in academia for too long.

You are clearly very bright and that will shine through in your writing. I guess what I am saying is that sometimes less is more, particularly outside of academia. Either that or I still have PTSD from reading Wittgenstein some 15 years ago.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Only late Wittgenstein is pretentious, early is the vox populi.... 

Seriously though, you've been cloistered up in academia for too long if you expect people to talk like this. Sure it can be all rather interesting, but you narrow and alienate your audience when you are actually speaking about real issues.

I don't expect people to talk like this, or understand me when I do outside specific contexts, of which demonstrating willingness to pontificate upon the psychological and epistemic sources of other people's beliefs very much is one. You're right that I have, however, been cloistered up in academia for too long.

You are clearly very bright and that will shine through in your writing. I guess what I am saying is that sometimes less is more, particularly outside of academia. Either that or I still have PTSD from reading Wittgenstein some 15 years ago.

I'm still trying to sort out having read Wittgenstein last year, so I definitely see where you're coming from.

[Linus Van Pelt]

If you're so into "willingness to use Google", you could have perhaps googled "Wittgenstein law of identity" and found that the third hit is the entry for "law of identity" in the Historical Dictionary of Wittgenstein's Philosophy, which begins:
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

and the fifth hit is an abstract at Oxford Scholarship Online for a paper called "Wittgenstein on Identity", which states:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So actually the combination "strict A=A Wittgensteinian" displays a fairly blatant historical misunderstanding, and it's pretty clear that you don't fully understand the phrase "strict 'A=A' rationalist Wittgensteinian episteme".

Independently of all this, it's a pretty minimal consideration for respectful and inclusive language is that you try to use words understood not only by the speaker but also by the listener.

[Kitteh]

FWIW, I think the last page or two of this thread has been much better than all the pages that preceded that.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

If you're so into "willingness to use Google", you could have perhaps googled "Wittgenstein law of identity" and found that the third hit is the entry for "law of identity" in the Historical Dictionary of Wittgenstein's Philosophy, which begins:
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

and the fifth hit is an abstract at Oxford Scholarship Online for a paper called "Wittgenstein on Identity", which states:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So actually the combination "strict A=A Wittgensteinian" displays a fairly blatant historical misunderstanding, and it's pretty clear that you don't fully understand the phrase "strict 'A=A' rationalist Wittgensteinian episteme". I have actually studied the Tractatus and the Investigations in detail and I already knew this, and I also understand that a pretty minimal consideration for respectful and inclusive language is that you try to use words understood not only by the speaker but also by the listener.

All right. Redact 'Wittgensteinian'. I had not remembered that aspect of Philosophical Investigations. Redacting 'Wittgensteinian', or better yet, replacing it with 'positivist' or some such term (please don't make me think too hard about this right now; see below), makes my argument more correct as well as easier to read. Apparently.

For the record, the reason I didn't Google 'wittgenstein law of identity' (which I clearly should have) was that I was pretty sure I was remembering Philosophical Investigations correctly. This turned out, obviously, to not be the case. For that much, at least, I apologize.

And having made a complete idiot of myself (which is why I'm being terse; the meatspace being behind the screen is currently crying in self-recrimination, actually, for having misunderstood Wittgenstein so badly and in such a public manner), I'm not entirely sure what to do now.

tl;dr you're right, I'm wrong, and I feel like complete sh**t now, but I still stand by everything except the word 'Wittgensteinian'.

[Joe Republic]

I was going to respond to Nathan's reply to my last post here, but I got bored reading it.  Sorry.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Mission accomplished, then, I guess.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The true irony in all this is that memphis and virtually everybody trying to defend him from the lynch mob are all supporters of gay rights.  The actual bigots have remained silent this entire time.  C'est la vie.

Being decent to people who are different than you is better evidence of not being a bigot than is supporting gay rights.

[Linus Van Pelt]

In all seriousness Nathan I apologize for my sharp sarcastic tone; I try to avoid that sort of thing, and I really don't want anyone to feel bad.

Taking a step back though, I do want to make a point about the earlier issue, which is that I wish everyone on all sides would be clearer about distinguishing the issue of sexual harassment from other theoretical questions about the nature of gender. It actually doesn't take any complex theorizing at all to see that something can be a desirable and healthy part of life but still inappropriate in some contexts . It's not "anti-eating" to point out that in some professional contexts it's inappropriate to randomly start chowing down on a pizza. It's not "anti-sleep" to point out that it's often very disrespectful to fall asleep in front of someone. And the same applies to making a sexual pass at someone. This whole flare-up actually started not with a discussion of the transgendered at all, but with a poster reporting that he had been sent some directly sexual messages when he was thought to be female. Pretty much everyone there of different political views and generations, including Duke and Gramps, recognized in that thread that this was kind of creepy, because they understood that in a world in which some men do not respect women's consent at all and in which there is a long history of women being considered unfit for serious intelligent work, it might reasonably cause even a women who might be quite happy to be hit on by certain men in certain contexts to feel upset and threatened to be sent sexual propositions from behind a veil of internet anonymity when she had come to discuss political geography and not voluntarily entered the sort of bar, party, etc., where there might some expectation of loosened boundaries. And yet Memphis responded that "being hit on is not a problem" and the only reason that the discussion turned to the transgendered was that he appeared to think that the only reason one could possibly be offended by this attitude was an opposition to heterosexuality more generally. It doesn't actually depend on any theory of the nature of gender to recognize that this is an outrageous attitude.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

In all seriousness Nathan I apologize for my sharp sarcastic tone; I try to avoid that sort of thing, and I really don't want anyone to feel bad.

It's okay. The problem was that I'm really insecure and was already freaking out over an academic conference, actually. In fact, I'm rather proud of myself that I've been here so long and this is the first time I've really acted self-flagellatory (by my own standards, which are admittedly rather high).

I'm going to ask a friend of mine who's really into Wittgenstein to help me understand him better (even if only so I can dislike his thought in a more informed manner). Although he might ask me to do him the same favor with Weber (it's probably fair to say I'm vastly more competent in social, political, legal, moral, and religious philosophy than in areas like logic and philosophy of language), so that could be...interesting.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And this is a really good point.

[Gustaf]

In all seriousness Nathan I apologize for my sharp sarcastic tone; I try to avoid that sort of thing, and I really don't want anyone to feel bad.

Taking a step back though, I do want to make a point about the earlier issue, which is that I wish everyone on all sides would be clearer about distinguishing the issue of sexual harassment from other theoretical questions about the nature of gender. It actually doesn't take any complex theorizing at all to see that something can be a desirable and healthy part of life but still inappropriate in some contexts . It's not "anti-eating" to point out that in some professional contexts it's inappropriate to randomly start chowing down on a pizza. It's not "anti-sleep" to point out that it's often very disrespectful to fall asleep in front of someone. And the same applies to making a sexual pass at someone. This whole flare-up actually started not with a discussion of the transgendered at all, but with a poster reporting that he had been sent some directly sexual messages when he was thought to be female. Pretty much everyone there of different political views and generations, including Duke and Gramps, recognized in that thread that this was kind of creepy, because they understood that in a world in which some men do not respect women's consent at all and in which there is a long history of women being considered unfit for serious intelligent work, it might reasonably cause even a women who might be quite happy to be hit on by certain men in certain contexts to feel upset and threatened to be sent sexual propositions from behind a veil of internet anonymity when she had come to discuss political geography and not voluntarily entered the sort of bar, party, etc., where there might some expectation of loosened boundaries. And yet Memphis responded that "being hit on is not a problem" and the only reason that the discussion turned to the transgendered was that he appeared to think that the only reason one could possibly be offended by this attitude was an opposition to heterosexuality more generally. It doesn't actually depend on any theory of the nature of gender to recognize that this is an outrageous attitude.

This is a mistake I often make - I consider this point to be so obvious I sort of assumed everyone was debating on this premise. I mean, let's take another step back and consider how any sane person would not think this way?

So, yeah, I'm not a radical feminist. I'm not necessarily on board with Nathan et al (I like that term so I'll stick with it) when it comes to cisgender and whatnot. But anyone who thinks that it's just dandy to hit on women regardless of circumstance has something a little bit wrong with them, I think.

Joe, for someone so anti-religion you're surprisingly anti-intellectual.

Memphis, I don't get your point. I'm quoting you. If you agree the things you said were abhorrent or stupid maybe you shouldn't have said them. I'm not making up random slander so stop pretending that I am.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I don't really mind 'Nathan et al' so long as it's not being used in such a way that I feel I'm being, for lack of a better word, accused of something. When it's being used as shorthand in the way that Bacon King was using it I guess it's actually kind of flattering.

Also I'd like to inform the forum that I've officially changed 'Wittgensteinian' to 'Vienna Circle-esque'. It has the twin virtues of being more accurate and working better as an insult, since Wittgenstein actually did do a lot of really important, impressive work in fields that I wish I understood better.

I feel better now.

[Gustaf]

I don't really mind 'Nathan et al' so long as it's not being used in such a way that I feel I'm being, for lack of a better word, accused of something. When it's being used as shorthand in the way that Bacon King was using it I guess it's actually kind of flattering.

Also I'd like to inform the forum that I've officially changed 'Wittgensteinian' to 'Vienna Circle-esque'. It has the twin virtues of being more accurate and working better as an insult, since Wittgenstein actually did do a lot of really important, impressive work in fields that I wish I understood better.

I feel better now.

Since no one really understands Wittgenstein I don't think you should feel bad about that.

[Gustaf]

Ok, I read the longer posts on the last page now. So I should comment.

I don't consider what Sbane said to be particularly offensive. Nor do I necessarily disagree.

There seem to be 3 important points of rebuttal coming from Memphis or people supporting him.

1. Men and women display inherent differences

There are a couple of things to say on this. Everyone agrees men and women behave differently, on average. That's pretty clear. The question is to what extent this depends on biology. This is an open question. The short answer is that we don't know for sure. What we do know is that social norms play a big part - this is evident in part due to changing gender roles throughout history and across the globe. But also in how peoples' behaviour in general is clearly very variant with culture. Thus, the idea that society is currently going too far in forcing gender equality onto natural differences is quite dubious. If one wants to argue this you need to indicate awareness of this other stuff to be taken seriously.

Secondly, and this is more important, even if there are such differences how should society treat them? If women are on average less suited to be engineers there will still be plenty of excellent female engineers. Constantly pushing the narrative of how women are worse engineers will do these women a great disservice.

To give a random example. If I'm making a movie about some criminal I could say that the criminal should definitely be black because blacks are so overrepresented in crime. But many of us might consider such an attitude to be problematic, precisely because it leads to people crossing the street when they see a young black male on the same side. Social stigmas matter, which leads to the next point.

2. Memphis has previously claimed that social norms and expectations wouldn't affect any normal person and that the claim that women might be held back by such things is the same as calling women weak and fragile. The same apparently goes for the idea that women shouldn't be subjected to constant sexual advances.

This is, basically, wrong. It shows a very shallow understanding of human society and psychology. People are very much affected by how society expects them to act and such things constitute major obstacles to people. People report posts on this forum because they're offended. People kill themselves over bullying. Examples abound of this sort of thing.

What makes this particularly offensive, at least to me, is the sheer nerve to say this from a privileged position. Most of us here are men. White men, at that. And in spite of the jokes I think the majority is also straight.

As such we don't have to live with this kind of stuff. Of course, you can have plenty of other problems, be it poverty or depression or whatnot. But the current topic, this thing, you don't have to live with. The condescension of informing others that they shouldn't whine about a problem you will never have to face yourself is deeply offensive. I'm all for arguing against victimization, but you need to be sensitive about it if you don't want to come off as a bigoted asshole.

3. This leads nicely into the last line of rebuttal, which goes something like "those who disagree that women can be sexually harassed and aren't fit for work are probably total pussies who like to dress in mens' clothing and will never get laid"

(ok, that was nasty hyperbole, but you know what I mean)

First of all, this is not true. At all. Me and most of my good friends get laid plenty and would never peddle this type of misogynist BS.

But more importantly there is so much wrong with this imagery. Invoking the concept of the 'real man' as an ideal to follow is highly oppressive, denying people the right to form their own identities. It promotes the idea that I have to act a certain way due to my gender. It is at the end of the day highly moralizing. It also indicates bigotry towards people who don't conform to stereotypes. Gay men is an obvious example of this but it really is about anyone.

Beyond that it is disturbing because it indicates that I could only care about women if I'm basically a woman myself. This goes against empathy and universalist values.

Finally, and this really needs to be stressed for people to get this context. This kind of stuff drives people to suicide. Which is why it isn't just a bit of a joke or something we should shrug off because you agree with Memphis on Obamacare or something. I'm not affected by it. I'm a white, rich, straight man. But as much of an asshole as I am I do have some empathy. And I know plenty of people have a damn hard time. And I'm willing to let them decide what makes their life a bit easier and not tell them they're men in women's clothing or chicks with dicks just because it's the kind of thing other straight men may laugh at in the pub.

[memphis]

You've beaten the crap out of some strawmen, Gus. Good job.

[tik 🪀✨]

So, I guess we can we all agree that it's probably a bad idea to send PM's to women (or weird people like me) that you barely know on the Atlas alluding to the desire for sex?

That was really the only point to any of how this started before it morphed into this frightening behemoth.

[memphis]

So, I guess we can we all agree that it's probably a bad idea to send PM's to women (or weird people like me) that you barely know on the Atlas alluding to the desire for sex?

That was really the only point to any of how this started before it morphed into this frightening behemoth.

I agree it's neither a good idea nor a demonstration of basic decency. But I also feel that the social acceptance for introductions has swung too far in the opposite direction where men are made to feel like predators for making any sort of compliment to a woman, no matter how tactfully done. And that's a shame both because people of both genders usually enjoy compliments and because most men are not vicious predators. It's extremely rude and presumptuous to suggest we are. Today's men are are caught in an unfair situation, which leads a lot of them to live lonely lives for fear of being labelled a slimeball or even a criminal. That's not to say life is perfect for women either. It's obviously not, but it irks me when womens grievances are accepted as gospel, but those of men are so callously dismessed because of assumptions that we are so privileged and bigoted and whatever. More broadly, there is an enormous stigma about men making any complaints about our lives, and that is a huge burden to live under as well. I very much wish that people could recognize, as I've stated earlier, that there are pros and cons to being either sex. The world is not as simple as female victims and male oppressors or vice versa.

[opebo]

So, I guess we can we all agree that it's probably a bad idea to send PM's to women (or weird people like me) that you barely know on the Atlas alluding to the desire for sex?

You're a transexxual as well?

[Sbane]

Ok, I read the longer posts on the last page now. So I should comment.

I don't consider what Sbane said to be particularly offensive. Nor do I necessarily disagree.

There seem to be 3 important points of rebuttal coming from Memphis or people supporting him.

1. Men and women display inherent differences

There are a couple of things to say on this. Everyone agrees men and women behave differently, on average. That's pretty clear. The question is to what extent this depends on biology. This is an open question. The short answer is that we don't know for sure. What we do know is that social norms play a big part - this is evident in part due to changing gender roles throughout history and across the globe. But also in how peoples' behaviour in general is clearly very variant with culture. Thus, the idea that society is currently going too far in forcing gender equality onto natural differences is quite dubious. If one wants to argue this you need to indicate awareness of this other stuff to be taken seriously.

Secondly, and this is more important, even if there are such differences how should society treat them? If women are on average less suited to be engineers there will still be plenty of excellent female engineers. Constantly pushing the narrative of how women are worse engineers will do these women a great disservice.

To give a random example. If I'm making a movie about some criminal I could say that the criminal should definitely be black because blacks are so overrepresented in crime. But many of us might consider such an attitude to be problematic, precisely because it leads to people crossing the street when they see a young black male on the same side. Social stigmas matter, which leads to the next point.

Yes, Gustaf, there will still be plenty of excellent women engineers, and in case you missed it, my mom is one of them. I know you are having fun with strawmen, but please stop misrepresenting my position. Got it?

All I have said is that GENERALLY (hopefully you understand the meaning of the word Gustaf) women are not as interested in being engineers as the subject matter does not appeal to them. That does not mean there aren't other reasons why so few engineers and doctors are women. I was just pointing out that the imbalance in genders in the medical field will likely even out very, very soon while the imbalance in engineering and math is likely here to stay. Again, I am speaking GENERALLY here.

There are real issues women still face today. Why don't we just listen to how Sheryl Sandberg herself describes the problem. One of them is that women many times don't take the lead. At least there the problem is mixed between biological and societal standards. I can't say what predominates there. The other more pressing issue is familial pressure. If you want to talk about women's issues and why you don't see them in the high ranks of society, this is the big elephant in the room. As Sheryl described on Meet the Press, she was once dropping off her kid at school. When they got there, one of the other parents (likely a woman but she didn't say) informed her that the kids were supposed to dress up like something or the other, and her kid was not dressed up in such a manner. After dropping her kid off, she felt terrible about it the whole day, and felt that she was a horrible mother. Then she got to thinking, if it was her husband dropping the kid off, would he even be told about it by the other parent? And more importantly, would he even beat himself up about it like she did? As you can see here, both biology and society are at play. This is a complex issue, Gustaf. I don't see why you and others want to simplify it. That is not the correct approach if you really want to find a solution.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah this again

1) Speaking GENERALLY there is no such thing as the average 'man' and the average 'woman'. There are only individuals who make decisions, some of whom have penises and some of whom have vaginas. There are some people from whom this is ambigious. A very small number, yes, but they exist. Why we should define people by their genitals is not something I fully understand but whatever...

2) Why do assume that women's current lack of interest in engineering is due to their inclinations and not just due to all types of social cues and expectations. We know that women perform better in certain situation than others due to social expectations. The culture around engineering and mathematics is one of the most masculine I know of, outside of sports*.

(* - Last year an Irish female boxer won our only gold medal in the olympics. She had been our only favourite too. In the run up to the event there was a great deal of media hype - unusual for a sporting event involved women and so I saw for the first time in my life, a sporting event in which the women I knew were more interested than the men. This is an ancedote, of course, but what does that tell you?)

Also, why are we knocking Wittgenstein? He was an intellectual hero even though I currently understand very little of what he wrote.

[Sbane]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A very small number, yes, but they exist. Why we should define people by their genitals is not something I fully understand but whatever...

Ah, but I am not doing that, am I? I think our trans posters, who probably want to agree with you, will at least have to concede that there is something deeper to gender than just the genitals.

Of course I bet you will say that I have missed the point. Oh you precious little humanities majors!

BTW, women weren't really expected to be doctors either by society. So why is it that they are making quicker strides in catching up in the medical field than in engineering?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It's always interesting to note that groups of medical students - there are always a lot in teaching hospitals for obvious reasons - are significantly less male than groups of doctors.

[Sbane]

It's always interesting to note that groups of medical students - there are always a lot in teaching hospitals for obvious reasons - are significantly less male than groups of doctors.

A function of age?

[Joe Republic]

Joe, for someone so anti-religion you're surprisingly anti-intellectual.

No, that's not usually true.  When you do observe it however, just consider it a reaction to when armchair philosophers talk about me and over me at the same time.