Surely “steel manning” what Desrtopa was replying must at the very least make it as reasonable as a literal interpretation of the words. If not then the very concept would seem to be devalued. In this case, Eugine was asking for an explanation of what the word ‘entitled’ is supposed mean. This seems necessary since it is clear that the intent is to convey strong connotations that those not familiar with feminist jargon may not be familiar with. After all, in some circles an ‘entitled’ attitude has positive connotations and refers to a somewhat different set of observable behavioral tendencies.
(This is not to say that I expect you to steel man Eugine. It may be legitimate for you and Desrotopa to assume Eugine is asking that question only with the intent to follow it up with some other provocative point—that even seems likely. However if making those assumptions you are no longer entitled to call what you are doing ‘steel manning’. )
Eugine was asking for an explanation of what the word ‘entitled’ is supposed mean. This seems necessary since it is clear that the intent is to convey strong connotations that those not familiar with feminist jargon may not be familiar with.
For what it is worth, I don’t think “entitled” is feminist jargon. As a lawyer, I would say the general usage of “entitled to X” is:
claim of moral right to receive X
When someone criticizes you for having an entitled attitude, they have an implicit premise that you don’t have the moral right that you claim. Thus:
You want to live in my home, rent free? That’s a very entitled attitude.
For what it is worth, I don’t think “entitled” is feminist jargon.
(Not exclusively, no. That is merely where your intended usage is most common and the most relevant to the context.)
The strong negative moral connotations you intend when you use that word are not universally associated with the word itself. It is often used very differently by subcultures. That is, “entitled” is also used as a non-morally-loaded description and even as a compliment. As such sometimes someone (in this case Eugine) may inquire about your meaning, giving you the chance to make your claim clear, as you have done here.
Sure, the negative connotation applies only when the implicit premise of “lack of moral right” is also present. I think the presence of that implicit premise can be determined by context, like my example at the end of my post.
I didn’t write it that way in my own response to Eugine because my experience is that discussions about object-level brute moral facts lead down an irrational rabbit hole in this venue.
Sure, the negative connotation applies only when the implicit premise of “lack of moral right” is also present. I think the presence of that implicit premise can be determined by context, like my example at the end of my post.
I agree, and certainly I had no trouble following your meaning. Mind you I tend to distance myself from such utterances because they convey a way of thinking about morality that I must emulate as if speaking a foreign language.
I didn’t write it that way in my own response to Eugine because my experience is that discussions about object-level brute moral facts lead down an irrational rabbit hole in this venue.
I don’t understand your recommendation for my future actions.
Desrotopa said something that could be interpreted as “asserting a moral right to a position that hurts the soda machine does not hurt any human being.” That is not precisely true, because harms to the soda machine are harms to the owner of the soda machine—and eventually, that reasoning traces to a human being.
I was trying to improve Eugine’s argument by including that point (tracing back to humans) explicitly. That is, I predict a reasonable person asserting Eugine’s positions would express the point I made. I wouldn’t have do that if I didn’t think it made Eugine’s overall argument better. I think the point is valid, as far as it goes, but it doesn’t address all of Desrtopa’s points. In my experience, explicitly laying out the points of agreement and disagree enhances rational argument by focusing attention on the disagreement.
If that’s not what you think steel-manning should mean, so be it. Saying the other side’s arguments in ways they would agree with, for the purpose of clarifying a disagreement, is at least potentially rationality enhancing. If Eugine finds it unhelpful, I’ll stop doing it with him. If he thinks I mis-stated his position, then I will correct.
I don’t understand your recommendation for my future actions.
The quote from Eugine being responded to was:
Taboo “entitled”. To use your example, is it entitled of me to expect a soda after putting 6 quarters into a vending machine.
The description you made was less reasonable than a literal interpretation of Eugine’s request. Therefore it cannot be said to be a steel man. At best it could be said to be “steel manning Desrtopa’s straw man”. This is an improvement but still not a steel man of Eugine’s claims. Saying that it is a steel man (and in the process suggesting that even then it is inadequate) both sends a false message about Eugine’s words and devalues the ‘Steel Man’ process.
So that cannot possibly be said that you do not understand my recommendation for future actions: In similar circumstances do not say this:
However, steel-manning his point in that way doesn’t address the remainder of your post.
To be clear, let me disclaim that I heartily endorse the other part of the comment, which was:
In fairness to Eugine’s point, there are humans lurking somewhere behind the soda machine—the shareholders of the soda company, if no one else.
The above does all those virtuous things that you describe in the parent.
That makes sense. Thus, better phrasing of my intended point would be:
In fairness to Eugine’s point, there are humans lurking somewhere behind the soda machine—the shareholders of the soda company, if no one else.
To the extent that Desrtopa’s response implied that Eugine believed no human preferences are at issue with the soda machine example, that was setting up a strawman. However, the presence of human preferences related to the soda machine does not address Desrtopa’s other points.
Surely “steel manning” what Desrtopa was replying must at the very least make it as reasonable as a literal interpretation of the words. If not then the very concept would seem to be devalued. In this case, Eugine was asking for an explanation of what the word ‘entitled’ is supposed mean. This seems necessary since it is clear that the intent is to convey strong connotations that those not familiar with feminist jargon may not be familiar with. After all, in some circles an ‘entitled’ attitude has positive connotations and refers to a somewhat different set of observable behavioral tendencies.
(This is not to say that I expect you to steel man Eugine. It may be legitimate for you and Desrotopa to assume Eugine is asking that question only with the intent to follow it up with some other provocative point—that even seems likely. However if making those assumptions you are no longer entitled to call what you are doing ‘steel manning’. )
For what it is worth, I don’t think “entitled” is feminist jargon. As a lawyer, I would say the general usage of “entitled to X” is:
When someone criticizes you for having an entitled attitude, they have an implicit premise that you don’t have the moral right that you claim. Thus:
(Not exclusively, no. That is merely where your intended usage is most common and the most relevant to the context.)
The strong negative moral connotations you intend when you use that word are not universally associated with the word itself. It is often used very differently by subcultures. That is, “entitled” is also used as a non-morally-loaded description and even as a compliment. As such sometimes someone (in this case Eugine) may inquire about your meaning, giving you the chance to make your claim clear, as you have done here.
Sure, the negative connotation applies only when the implicit premise of “lack of moral right” is also present. I think the presence of that implicit premise can be determined by context, like my example at the end of my post.
I didn’t write it that way in my own response to Eugine because my experience is that discussions about object-level brute moral facts lead down an irrational rabbit hole in this venue.
I agree, and certainly I had no trouble following your meaning. Mind you I tend to distance myself from such utterances because they convey a way of thinking about morality that I must emulate as if speaking a foreign language.
Absolutely.
I don’t understand your recommendation for my future actions.
Desrotopa said something that could be interpreted as “asserting a moral right to a position that hurts the soda machine does not hurt any human being.” That is not precisely true, because harms to the soda machine are harms to the owner of the soda machine—and eventually, that reasoning traces to a human being.
I was trying to improve Eugine’s argument by including that point (tracing back to humans) explicitly. That is, I predict a reasonable person asserting Eugine’s positions would express the point I made. I wouldn’t have do that if I didn’t think it made Eugine’s overall argument better. I think the point is valid, as far as it goes, but it doesn’t address all of Desrtopa’s points. In my experience, explicitly laying out the points of agreement and disagree enhances rational argument by focusing attention on the disagreement.
If that’s not what you think steel-manning should mean, so be it. Saying the other side’s arguments in ways they would agree with, for the purpose of clarifying a disagreement, is at least potentially rationality enhancing. If Eugine finds it unhelpful, I’ll stop doing it with him. If he thinks I mis-stated his position, then I will correct.
The quote from Eugine being responded to was:
The description you made was less reasonable than a literal interpretation of Eugine’s request. Therefore it cannot be said to be a steel man. At best it could be said to be “steel manning Desrtopa’s straw man”. This is an improvement but still not a steel man of Eugine’s claims. Saying that it is a steel man (and in the process suggesting that even then it is inadequate) both sends a false message about Eugine’s words and devalues the ‘Steel Man’ process.
So that cannot possibly be said that you do not understand my recommendation for future actions: In similar circumstances do not say this:
To be clear, let me disclaim that I heartily endorse the other part of the comment, which was:
The above does all those virtuous things that you describe in the parent.
That makes sense. Thus, better phrasing of my intended point would be: