I am busy, so not responding to all parts of these comments, especially not those with longer inferential distance, and prolly won’t keep replying here for at least a few days. But to be clear I said that Said was attempting to call people fools[1] with plausible deniability, and that he should do so without the subterfuge, then he denied that he thought people were fools, so there’s not a natural next step here where I praise him for saying it directly. I’m not sure I believe him but this does not seem like the margin to prosecute that criticism.
As an aside, I have a long draft blogpost from a year ago explaining why plausible-deniable aggression and plausible-deniable rule-breaking is really bad, which I hope to finish and publish one day. This isn’t some new position I have found in the course of this political conflict, it is something I have believed for a long time (and have been slightly surprised that you find it so improbable that I would hold this position, I would’ve thought it relatively clear why it is at least compelling once the hypothesis was raised).
“Calling them fools” here is a stand-in for “is intentionally attempting to lower their status, and not incidentally doing so as a side effect of criticizing their writing”. The specific word “fool” is not the load-bearing part.
I have a long draft blogpost from a year ago explaining why plausible-deniable aggression [...] I would’ve thought it relatively clear why it is at least compelling once the hypothesis was raised
I look forward to the post. (I’d love to read the draft, if you’re comfortable sharing.)
The reason I have the opposite intuition so strongly is because I think regulating social status emotions is a distraction from the intellectually substantive work we’re here to do. Norms that encourage people to overtly do more of that seem super toxic, and norms that encourage inquisitorial scrutiny of subjective minutiae of subtext to make certain it’s not happening covertly seem super toxic in a different way. I’d rather just let people’s emotional regulation happen in the background without having to talk about it. If that means some people get away with slipping in social “attacks” through the subtext of their writing without getting punished except by subtextual counterattacks from their interlocutors, that seems like a pretty normal part of talking naturally as a human, and I’d rather just let it happen than try to heavy-handedly control it.
“Calling them fools” here is a stand-in for “is intentionally attempting to lower their status, and not incidentally doing so as a side effect of criticizing their writing”. The specific word “fool” is not the load-bearing part. [...] then he denied that he thought people were fools, so there’s not a natural next step here where I praise him for saying it directly
I am busy, so not responding to all parts of these comments, especially not those with longer inferential distance, and prolly won’t keep replying here for at least a few days. But to be clear I said that Said was attempting to call people fools[1] with plausible deniability, and that he should do so without the subterfuge, then he denied that he thought people were fools, so there’s not a natural next step here where I praise him for saying it directly. I’m not sure I believe him but this does not seem like the margin to prosecute that criticism.
As an aside, I have a long draft blogpost from a year ago explaining why plausible-deniable aggression and plausible-deniable rule-breaking is really bad, which I hope to finish and publish one day. This isn’t some new position I have found in the course of this political conflict, it is something I have believed for a long time (and have been slightly surprised that you find it so improbable that I would hold this position, I would’ve thought it relatively clear why it is at least compelling once the hypothesis was raised).
“Calling them fools” here is a stand-in for “is intentionally attempting to lower their status, and not incidentally doing so as a side effect of criticizing their writing”. The specific word “fool” is not the load-bearing part.
Hope whatever tasks you’re busy with go well!
I look forward to the post. (I’d love to read the draft, if you’re comfortable sharing.)
The reason I have the opposite intuition so strongly is because I think regulating social status emotions is a distraction from the intellectually substantive work we’re here to do. Norms that encourage people to overtly do more of that seem super toxic, and norms that encourage inquisitorial scrutiny of subjective minutiae of subtext to make certain it’s not happening covertly seem super toxic in a different way. I’d rather just let people’s emotional regulation happen in the background without having to talk about it. If that means some people get away with slipping in social “attacks” through the subtext of their writing without getting punished except by subtextual counterattacks from their interlocutors, that seems like a pretty normal part of talking naturally as a human, and I’d rather just let it happen than try to heavy-handedly control it.
The world “fool” may not be load-bearing in your comment, but I’m pretty sure it is load-bearing in Achmiz’s denial (“But you’re not a fool [...] that’s what makes this all so frustrating”). He’s trying to lower your status by calling you dishonest, not stupid.