98 % spoon-free signal boost
via ithiliana -- I wanted to point at this wonderful post for anyone who's either a) still wondering what Moon said/did that was So bad (unlikely in this space, I know) or b) wondering how tf to explain it to people who Just Don't Get It.
Because! The link is a really good some-sociolinguistics deconstruction of Moon's original post.
----
On a related note, some of the (real) responses to Wiscon's decision to disinvite, as well as that mess with Mr. Asshat in the Apex blog*, have me wondering about things that are framed as "reasonable disagreement" in our discourse. Where we are told "Of course I agree with you, but why won't you have this discussion with the people who don't get it? They have points too."
I know this is not a new thought in any way; it's just... my thinking it this time. There are clearly some things that are just not topics of reasonable debate (like, oh, is genocide bad?) and others that are (like, oh, how is a state's limited budget best spent). But there are also a whole number of things in group A that are treated like they're in group B because the unreasonable people who are just plain wrong are also in positions of privilege. So there's an implicit assumption that there must be something reasonable there.
I've just been thinking... it's useful when I jump to "Oh, I get this person's point, but there's reasonable disagreement from this other person" to stop, and go "Are these two people equally involved in the thing they have opinions on? And if not, is the outsider a person of privilege on this axis, and is that why I'm according them default respect/excuses?"
And that seems to me like a start, anyway, towards deconstructing some of the assimilated-viewpoint I've picked up.
* The one who's against OMG PC QUOTAS letting wimmins and dark people into TOCs. I am not linking/increasing page hits or naming him, because he's pretty clearly begging for pageviews, but I will link to responses by Cat Valente,, Athena Andreadis, and Jim Hines.
----
still not up to comment-response.
Because! The link is a really good some-sociolinguistics deconstruction of Moon's original post.
----
On a related note, some of the (real) responses to Wiscon's decision to disinvite, as well as that mess with Mr. Asshat in the Apex blog*, have me wondering about things that are framed as "reasonable disagreement" in our discourse. Where we are told "Of course I agree with you, but why won't you have this discussion with the people who don't get it? They have points too."
I know this is not a new thought in any way; it's just... my thinking it this time. There are clearly some things that are just not topics of reasonable debate (like, oh, is genocide bad?) and others that are (like, oh, how is a state's limited budget best spent). But there are also a whole number of things in group A that are treated like they're in group B because the unreasonable people who are just plain wrong are also in positions of privilege. So there's an implicit assumption that there must be something reasonable there.
I've just been thinking... it's useful when I jump to "Oh, I get this person's point, but there's reasonable disagreement from this other person" to stop, and go "Are these two people equally involved in the thing they have opinions on? And if not, is the outsider a person of privilege on this axis, and is that why I'm according them default respect/excuses?"
And that seems to me like a start, anyway, towards deconstructing some of the assimilated-viewpoint I've picked up.
* The one who's against OMG PC QUOTAS letting wimmins and dark people into TOCs. I am not linking/increasing page hits or naming him, because he's pretty clearly begging for pageviews, but I will link to responses by Cat Valente,, Athena Andreadis, and Jim Hines.
----
still not up to comment-response.