Comment by civilian | Hacker News Reader

Comment by civilian | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The accusation of sea-lioning is ridiculous. Alex wrote in his blog, he's not pestering someone on twitter. All he's done is committed a thoughtcrime for questioning. :-]

I have friends who are social-justicey and I've read a lot online, and it continually feels like Social Justice is just an extended application of marxism. (I.e. there are some disadvantaged groups, and it's because the system, so take down the system by any means necessary!!) And Marxism itself suffers from being more of a critcism than offering an alternative moral system. http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/13/book-review-singer-on-m... I'm telling you so that you know that I've done the research.

And I hear you, I also get the feeling that mainstream political discourse is just different camps shouting out eachother's most obvious flaws. And our last election was a _perfect example of that_. When surveyed for why someone was going to vote Trump/Clinton, the most common answer was: "Well they're not Clinton/Trump!!". [citation needed]

But like, where do we go from there? We just can't talk to eachother because the other side is just trying to fuck with us? We gotta keep trying. Even if AlexRohde is not asking questions in good faith, you've got a chance to win over the audience.

> The accusation of sea-lioning is ridiculous. Alex wrote in his blog, he's not pestering someone on twitter.

OK, it's not quite sea-lioning, but it's similar in effect - and, I still strongly suspect, in spirit. The asymmetry of one person asking dozens of questions, without much context or any hint of their own answers (except where those are evident from the leading nature of the questions), is a poor basis for dialog. If you want to engage with someone, there has to be give as well as take. Anyone who has tried to find common ground on a contentious topic before is likely to realize that. I guess I should just assume Alex doesn't have such experience.

> Even if AlexRohde is not asking questions in good faith, you've got a chance to win over the audience.

Indeed, that's a good point. I do so all the time, here and elsewhere. It's important. However, the "please fill out form ABC" format is a terrible way to do that. When the best outcome is a very small increase in understanding and the more likely outcome is an exercise in goalpost-chasing, I'll pass. I'd rather save my energy to persuade people of the points I consider important, in a less biased frame, with some interactivity thrown in.

I can't tell if your failure to distinguish between actual questions and rhetorical questions is deliberate or not.

But - at the risk of taking a troll's bait - perhaps we can just assume that the author of the linked blog isn't actually expecting anyone to respond to his questions literally. Instead, he's obliquely asserting that the questions he poses haven't been, and can't be, answered reasonably by people who subscribe to a "social justice" worldview. He's saying that people with that worldview are illogical or hypocritical or unreasonable, because questions like those he's raising deserve (and aren't getting) satisfactory answers.

Ultimately, the point that he's belaboring is that the "social justice" movement as he understands it doesn't rest on any fixed values, but that what's just depends on the perspective of individuals, e.g., is essentially applied moral relativism. And he's doesn't believe moral relativism is an appropriate foundation for organizing human life.

So the challenge is to either disagree, and identify fixed moral positions/values that support "social justice"; or to agree that social justice is moral relativism, but that's OK because moral relativism is OK.

Or one can say "I reject that characterization/argument" - but the danger is that others may perceive the rejection as motivated by fear or an admission of failure, especially if you don't present an alternative characterization that seems at least as reasonable.

Often, the purpose of an argument isn't to influence the other participant, but to influence others who may observe the exchange. Even if the author is "sea lioning" (aka concern trolling), if he does it effectively enough, third parties who can't tell the difference may find it convincing, and claims that "the answer is obvious" or "you should already know the answer" are unpersuasive.

> Ultimately, the point that he's belaboring is that the "social justice" movement as he understands it doesn't rest on any fixed value

That's no more true for social justice than for any other view or principle held by many. There is in fact a large established body of work exploring what social justice means and exploring the concept in excruciating detail, from the Englightenment through Rawls, Nozick, and others. Yes, everyone brings their own personal interpretation, but so does every liberal, white nationalist, feminist conservative, Nazi, libertarian, etc. Singling out social-justice theory, when it's among the most developed of these ideas, is absurd.

> So the challenge is to either disagree, and identify fixed moral positions/values that support "social justice"; or to agree that social justice is moral relativism

As I said, I often do that, but not within an opponent's frame according to their priorities and subject to their judgment of which answers are sufficient.

> third parties who can't tell the difference may find it convincing

And if it's called out clearly enough, those same third parties might find it singularly unconvincing and be put off by the attempt to instigate a false debate.

> Yes, everyone brings their own personal interpretation

It is fascinating (and illustrative) that you are apparently unable to even imagine something that isn't moral relativism.

You are missing the point. What if everyone doesn't bring their own personal interpretation?

It's equally fascinating that you call things moral relativism that aren't. Handy slur, isn't it? "Moral relativism" refers to the belief that morality depends on historical context. Somebody can believe that absolute right and wrong exists independent of that context, utterly rejecting relativism, without subjugating their own moral judgment to someone else's. They can be absolutely inflexible on matters of principle and on how they apply it to specific situations, without copying from someone else. It's called independence of thought and belief. It's called liberty, not relativism. Only sheep are otherwise.

Heh. "There's no field more studied!" That's great, but still... I think it's such a bad strategy to be hostile about people who are learning about SJ. If you think that Social Justice is persuasive and morally right, then wouldn't responding to Alex's blog post be a great starting point for an introductory post about SJ?

This is one of my favorite XKCDs: https://xkcd.com/1053/

Yeah, and maybe if Alex elucidated his views that would be a great starting point. Or if you elucidated yours. Why should anyone but you do all the work? Pay me and I'll write for you. I don't work for free.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com