There’s no need to be “extra-charitable” but it is helpful to give unbiased definitions of a group. If you want to then say “and I think that what they really act like is X” that’s a distinct step, but actively defining a political movement to be something that they would not self-identify as is heavily in the mind-killing territory.
Becuause that’s not a definition, that’s a description, and it builds into the situation a No-True-Scotsman situation into any dispute. It is therefore far more useful to keep distinct the self-identity of a movement and then state descriptively what the people who self-identify as such in practice act like.
It is therefore far more useful to keep distinct the self-identity of a movement and then state descriptively what the people who self-identify as such in practice act like.
Oookay then. Let’s look at my post. Here it is in its entirety:
SJ = Social Justice, a framework of looking at the world as a fight against omnipresent oppression, mostly by white men of everyone else.
Oh! You said “it is therefore far more useful to keep distinct the self-identity of a movement” and here it is:
SJ = Social Justice
and then you said “and then state descriptively what the people who self-identify as such in practice act like” and here it is:
a framework of looking at the world as a fight against omnipresent oppression, mostly by white men of everyone else.
So, remind me again what are you complaining about?
The objection is the phrasing of social justice as a ” framework of looking at the world as a fight against omnipresent oppression, mostly by white men of everyone else.” I’m in agreement that to a large extent that isn’t an inaccurate descriptor for much of passes for SJ. The mind-killing problem is to use that as the definition.
SJ = Social Justice, a framework of looking at the world as a fight against omnipresent oppression, mostly by white men of everyone else.
It isn’t rationalism to to give the most uncharitable definition of a movement or group possible.
Oh, that’s not the “most uncharitable” definition by far. I can easily come up with much worse.
I happen to think my definition is correct and I don’t see any particular reason to be extra-charitable about it.
There’s no need to be “extra-charitable” but it is helpful to give unbiased definitions of a group. If you want to then say “and I think that what they really act like is X” that’s a distinct step, but actively defining a political movement to be something that they would not self-identify as is heavily in the mind-killing territory.
I disagree. I don’t see why a useful definition of a political movement has to match their self-identification.
Becuause that’s not a definition, that’s a description, and it builds into the situation a No-True-Scotsman situation into any dispute. It is therefore far more useful to keep distinct the self-identity of a movement and then state descriptively what the people who self-identify as such in practice act like.
Oookay then. Let’s look at my post. Here it is in its entirety:
Oh! You said “it is therefore far more useful to keep distinct the self-identity of a movement” and here it is:
and then you said “and then state descriptively what the people who self-identify as such in practice act like” and here it is:
So, remind me again what are you complaining about?
The objection is the phrasing of social justice as a ” framework of looking at the world as a fight against omnipresent oppression, mostly by white men of everyone else.” I’m in agreement that to a large extent that isn’t an inaccurate descriptor for much of passes for SJ. The mind-killing problem is to use that as the definition.
It’s not a definition, it’s an explanation in the context of someone asking “What does SJ mean?”