site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   15598 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 19, 2022

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

16
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I just applied for a job that included this beautiful pronoun selection question (skipped it). Then further down the page there was another blank field to enter my pronouns (skipped it)!

I kind of want to know what the hell "Fae/Faer" is, but also kind of don't. Is that for people who identify as fairy folk? I can see that giving you an advantage on your job application!

/images/1671730033406268.webp

Can anyone steelman the case for any of the non-standard pronouns? Why hasn't the LGBT community settled on he/she/they, or even just exclusively using they?

Also curious what's the point of including the subject and object forms (e.g. he and him), seems redundant to me, unless someone is combining he/her or she/him? I've heard non-binary folks are doing similar that in languages where both the verbs and pronouns inflect based on gender and there isn't any neuter form (e.g. hebrew)

English is not my native language but "it" seems much more gramatically correct than the plural ambiguous "they".

The fact we alter language to make it more ambiguous, for humans and even more so for AIs is worrying.

At some point I was for eliminating she/he but then I remembered the little known fact that it is useful for coreference resolution. However besides this fact I'm convinced if we eliminated he/she, there would be much less identity wars between the two genders and therefore more egalitarianism.

They is only inherently plural in literary English. In most dialects of spoken English they is acceptable to refer to an unknown referent.

This is true, but only to a point. "Today I went to Allie's house and had dinner with them," has a very strong connotation to me that Allie is married and dinner was with the couple, rather than dinner being with a singular person who uses "they" as a pronoun.

But I maybe I've been under a rock for too long.

Well, yes, because in that case Allie would be a known referent. In the statement ‘I was just in the handicap bathroom. Someone made a stink beforehand, they also used all the toilet paper.’, it doesn’t imply more than one person because the referent is known.

Unfortunately in the context I heard this Allie was not a known referent (to me), but a person who goes by they. I fear the experience made me a bit jaded.

Well sure, but that’s an individual being a weirdo. Almost everyone who goes by Allie uses she/her pronouns.

More grammatically correct, but also very rude. To use "it" as a pronoun carries the connotation that you're referring to an inanimate object. As you might imagine, people don't like this.

I appreciate the desire for good grammar but using "it" as the neutral third person pronoun will never catch on because of how rude it is.

To be fair, "it" is still used for infants, and it used to be used for non-infant children as well.* Maybe it could make a comeback.

*Examples from a 1902 children's book coincidentally named Five Children and It:

Everyone [of the five] got its legs kicked or its feet trodden on in the scramble to get out of the carriage that very minute, but no one seemed to mind.

Each of the [four] children carried its own spade, and took it in turns to carry the Lamb [the baby].

They [four] looked at each other in despair, and it was terrible to each, in this dire emergency, to meet only the beautiful eyes of perfect strangers, instead of the merry, friendly, commonplace, twinkling, jolly little eyes of its own brothers and sisters.

Eugenisists, Anti-natalists, and Fabiains (but i repeat myself) have been trying to normalize the use of "it" to refer to children, infants, and the mentally impaired since the late 19th century. It hasn't caught on for reasons already covered by @SubstantialFrivolity, refering to humans as inanimate ojects just naturally sticks in a lot of people's craws, but that hasnt stopped them from continuing to try.

Eugenisists, Anti-natalists, and Fabiains (but i repeat myself) have been trying to normalize the use of "it" to refer to children, infants, and the mentally impaired since the late 19th century

This seems a bit preposterous. Could you provide a source? As far as I can tell, 'it' was simply the most common pronoun for infants in the 19th century, and considering that 50% of infants didn't make it past early childhood, it sort of made sense not to get too attached to your infant child.

It's not because something is useful than it is logically sufficient. Those culture might have gender issues for other reasons, yet the linguistic distinction promote tribalization.

Nor are there problems with coreference resolution

I don't see a proof, languages SOTA in NLP are consistently inferior to english SOTA.

That is because there are more researchers and datasets for english but not only.

Some languages are more fit for NLP, and english as it is known is among the simpler languages.

Now about the usefulness of he/she, well it trivially solves coreference resolution in case of ambiguity.

For example:

I was talking to Alice and Bob, then suddenly she passed out.

Who passed out?

Alice.

It is trivial and useful, it reduce the cognitive load of reading and writing, and works well since 49% of humans are women.

Use of he/she only resolves ambiguity when you are talking about exactly one man and one woman. If the goal is minimizing ambiguity, you might look into something more similar to obviative pronouns: something like I was talking to Alice(1) and Betty(2), then suddenly she(2) passed out.

When there is more than one third person named in a sentence or discourse context, the most important, salient, or topical is marked as "proximate" and any other, less salient entities are marked as "obviative." Subsequent sentences that refer to previously-named entities with pronouns or verbal inflections can then use the proximate and obviative references that have already been established to distinguish between the two.

Excellent comment, very much appreciated.

It's not everyday someones manage to teach me a new concept :)

Quite a crazy coincidence, I saw this word before your comment yesterday by pure luck https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WNjOWZiY/

It often happen to me, to see something apparently (?) for the first time in my life and then to see it again, in the following days out of pure coincidence.

While I'm tempted to believe such coincidence have a mystic nature, the insight I derive from this phenomenon is that I must have a cognitive bias of being blind to unknown words, that is until I see a proper definition of them. Kinda sad.

Anyway back on the topic, would there be a way to use an obviative pronoun in english without sounding too robotic/unnatural?

Well English surely seems deceptively simpler than it is, I often find in my quest of building the first program able to understand sentences, such hidden complexity.

The most effective way to contemplate it though is to browse this forgotten field that is Computational linguistics

https://semanticsarchive.net/cgi-bin/browse.pl?search=

what if it's Alice and Barbara? It might work in 50% of the cases then.

Exactly, this is an optimization not a necessary component of language but I believe, a useful one.

The most striking example is to learn French, where we gender objects. That seems absurd and it semantically is, but it allows to disambiguate objects in a mental scene.

Oh I just realized that's what you meant with German.

Also yes, the path to progress is a long one :)

English is not my native language but "it" seems much more gramatically correct than the plural ambiguous "they".

"It" would imply the person is an object, "they" says you just don't know what their gender is.

"It" would imply the person is an object

or an animal.

An ambiguous "is maybe an object" is preferable to "is maybe plural" since contextual confusion about the former is extremely less likely than the later.

But yeah ideally we would create a new gender neutral singular pronoun.

An ambiguous "is maybe an object" is preferable to "is maybe plural" since contextual confusion about the former is extremely less likely than the later.

I haven't seen a case where it wasn't obvious that "they" was referring to the plural over the person. Can you point to an instance where that happens? I think people just clarify which "they" is being referred to.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats