undefined | Better HN

0 pointsHyp3rion5y ago0 comments

> I find myself self-censoring on controversial topics far more often than I think is healthy for deep, mutual understanding

I've been finding more and more that I have to bite my tongue around people, even that I know also. The most upsetting part is when you see otherwise intelligent people fall into fallacious anti-patterns. One such anti-pattern that I see right now is black and white reasoning. For instance disagreeing with something being labelled racist means you support racism. Essentially, if you can shift the conversation from a complex topic (is this action racist) to a simple one (we shouldn't be racists) then it becomes easier to form an opinion and castigate your opponent.

I have to wonder how much of this is the person on the other side trying to copout of a topic which they haven't thought about, versus the influence of twitter-like agitprop. I think it's likely a fusion of both.

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

nerdponx5y ago· 1 in thread

You might be surprised to learn that it's often neither. This stuff is rooted in the decades-long academic tradition of critical race theory.

Misapplication of that theory it might or might not be. But in the spirit of the topic of the article posted here, it might be worth looking at the academic origins of this movement.

Here's a nice summary article https://spectator.us/topic/anti-racism-really-means-debate-w...

You might or might not agree with the ideas proposed therein. I certainly have mixed feelings about it. But you can't dismiss a movement as illegitimate without at least trying to understanding it.

That said, people who really buy into critical race theory can be difficult to debate or discuss with, much like any other "extreme" or "total" view of the world. But you must respect the fact that, for many, this is not an academic debate but a life-or-death fight for justice, equality, and freedom.

Don't dismiss what you don't understand. Feel free to disagree, but don't dismiss it.

Hyp3rionOP5y ago

I think you may have missed my point, and that quote you are using is just on the borderline of being taken out of context. Perhaps that's my fault for using the word 'agitprop' in place of groupthink, stunting, or something else less loaded.

I'm not dismissing postmodernity and associated schools of thought, rather I'm dismissing lazily shoe-horning your opponents ideas into a more simplistic, easier to attack strawman. It might sound like postmodernism, but it definitely is not.

Postmodern critical theory is about deconstruction, context and narrative structures -- the absolute opposite of black and white thinking and strawmaning. The latter is what I am dismissing.

The sorts of bad faith strawmen I am referring to are about as close to postmodernism as new age woo peddlers' arguments are to quantum mechanics. It's debasing to the true theory to even call them misapplications. To your point, I dismiss this sort of behavior because I understand it.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse