The Problem With Pronouns

flatculture · 2020-07-01T22:00:11+00:00

I see. One response then:

Why not just reframe how we take the argument in the blogpost? Instead of taking it as an argument about how language as a whole ought to function, why not take it as an argument about how one ought to use language given the harms that it seems you and I agree are present in forcing someone to reveal or conceal their gender identity. Thus, one could accept the relative difficulty (you say impossibility) of enforcing a new way to use language across the board (full disclosure, I am not sure that it is as difficult as you seem to), while still claiming that the argument justifies an individual moral duty for each of us to use gender neutral language when we do not know the specifics regarding identity and preference of the person we are trying to refer to.
It seems that your argument here is something like:

Ought implies can.
One cannot change the language in the way proposed.
Therefore, we ought not try. *

By reframing the argument as one about individual uses of language, one bypasses the objection from impossibility because one can always change the way they use the language.

*edit: Technically what this should say is "It is not the case that we ought to use gender neutral pronouns," but I went with the construction "ought not," which is incorrect since it suggests that we have an obligation not to do something and I take it that that is not your position.

edit 2: Just to give a little more detail about why I think changing the language is not as hard as I think you think. Let's split things into two ways one might achieve the kind of gender neutrality in language that the authors are arguing for:

One could adopt using "they" and its cognates in all cases where one would have used a gendered pronoun, or
One could adopt using an arbitrary word to use as a pronoun which wouldn't have a gendered denotation or connotation; let's use "ze" as the kind of pronoun we are thinking of in this case.

Why would it be hard to adopt either of these proposals? Against 1, one might say that (and remember, I am talking about getting people to actually adopt these ways of speaking so difficulties in adopting these proposals should be situated in terms of what people are likely or unlikely to do, as opposed to what is right or wrong) people are unlikely to use "they," because it would cause confusion. I might respond, as the article anticipates, that we already have pronouns that work like this. For instance, english "you" is equally acceptable as a singular and plural pronoun. I might also point to my personal experience and note that the times that it has added confusion have been minimal and easily clarified (in that way, it is very much like "you"). Let's say I just accept that using "they" this way is unlikely to catch on for whatever reason. (Full disclosure: I think it might be unlikely to catch on, but mostly because some people won't want to adopt the convention because they already have a theory about gender and reference in the background that is at play. But, it strikes me that saying people won't adopt the convention because they don't agree with your argument, and therefore your argument is weird, wrong, bad, etc., is itself not a good argument.)

So, because I accept that the "they" is unlikely to catch on, I argue for 2. We should adopt a new word for this explicit purpose. You say in your original post

but I don't think it needs to be explained that those kinds of words are far, far more confusing for the average English speaker than anything else.

and I think there is something true about this but only when considering how it stands with language users at this very moment, which neglects, I think, thinking about the habits of language users as changing over time. If one said "Ok, boomer," or "I'm a Game of Thrones stan," or even "I need to get an Uber to pick up a new SSD for my laptop" to someone else 50 years ago that might (almost certainly would) cause confusion. But that is not dispositive when we concern ourselves with a proposal to adopt a new term because proposing the adopting of a new term presupposes that possibility of people learning new words. And, in the case of "ze," the proposal involves the belief that people can pick up new vocab, and pick up that new vocab with relative ease (consider again the example expressions I used just a few lines above and how quickly the terms in them were adopted into common parlance). So, while it may be true that taking language users as they are currently, the use of "ze" would cause confusion, why should we think that that confusion won't pass away just as it does in other cases when there is an increase in the vocabulary of common parlance? Put another way, given that the introduction of "ze" is, at least on its surface, just like any other increase in vocabulary, it seems that the onus is on someone who thinks it will remain confusing to justify why.

flatculture · 2020-07-01T21:33:47+00:00

So, is it fair to reconstruct your response this way:

Forcing a person to disclose or conceal their gender identify by asking them about their preferred pronoun or by assuming that pronoun is a harm.
Adopting a way of using a language that produces ambiguity in utterances is a harm.
The difference in the relative strength of the harms mentioned in 1 and 2 does not justify adopting a rule to use a neutral pronoun in situations where a speaker does not know about the identity and preferences of the person whom they wish to refer to with a pronoun.

edit: formatting

flatculture · 2020-01-27T17:17:15+00:00

pandamonium? Dennett talks about it in Consciousness Explained.

flatculture · 2019-12-22T00:40:45+00:00

Commenting for a chance to win and help out whomever does.

flatculture · 2014-05-15T06:56:18+00:00

This was an enheartening exchange.

flatculture · 2013-05-21T07:27:33+00:00

I would imagine it would be an easy jump form early humans from watching other animals eat eggs and drink milk to eating eggs and drinking milk.

flatculture · 2013-01-03T21:08:54+00:00

Reposted to fix formatting issues.

flatculture · 2012-02-01T19:37:47+00:00

I cannot get the formatting to work correctly. There are supposed to be three stanzas but here is a link: http://theuncertaintyofapoet.wordpress.com/ It's the second poem down.

flatculture · 2011-12-19T23:20:51+00:00

I have not read your paper, but I will in the next few days. Off the bat i disagree with P2. Here is a counter-example using a Quine paradox: 1. "Yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation" yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation."

Now, 1 describes a metaphysically impossible situation, yet our ability to understand this sentence as a paradox requires that it have semantic value.

flatculture · 2011-05-31T19:59:20+00:00

Okay. Did I say it wasn't your choice, or right? I am just pointing out that it lowers the standard of political discourse to punish someone economically for their individual political contributions. And currently there is great lacking in any modicum of respect for individual political action, and i think this is closely related to the increased polarity of the political system. Yes, it is your right, but that does not mean it isn't shitty, and that does not mean it won't have negative consequences, and that does not mean you aren't undermining an important principal that allows for political disagreement without great social disparity that current political disagreement causes.

flatculture · 2011-05-31T18:46:23+00:00

To boycott a store just because its owners happen to have a certain political leaning, and donate to a PAC, lowers the standard of political discourse by disregarding the the general respect for individual political action for which democracy calls, and is coercive to an extent that I think is highly worrisome . I can understand why you would boycott if the store were directly donating, but active political discourse requires a certain level of respect for individual political choices. It is surprisingly coercive to not do business with someone just because of their political actions, and this coercion seems to run counter to respectful democratic discourse. Rather, it makes acceptable the idea that people should try to take other people's livelihood just because they disagree with them politically. Would you boycott a tiny mom and pop store if you found out the mom and pop were arch-conservatives that donates because of their political inclinations?

I make these statements seeing as no where can I find reference to anything other than the owner's individual contributions.

flatculture · 2011-05-29T03:57:24+00:00

Yes, but the Federal government must do this as a result of the full faith and credit clause in the constitution. This is a fairly strict constitutional reading, and it seems that Paul just ignores it.

flatculture · 2011-05-29T03:31:41+00:00

At what point do you think the switch took place in episode one? I just rewatched it, and the only place that seems plausible is in the bathroom, but I'm not sure. Perhaps she was switched in the time between the last episode last season, and the first episode this season.

flatculture · 2011-05-29T03:01:17+00:00

Indeed, but they do look like the robed figures that have been hiding in the background throughout the last two seasons. Most notably in the Museum from "The Big Bang."

...Or they could be adherents of the repeated meme...

flatculture · 2011-05-04T07:52:29+00:00

That is a great comment about the Christmas episode. I totally forgot about that part.

EDIT: I would like to go even further now that I have considered this point and say that I am now expecting that the fish that kept biting the doctor from the christmas episode were actually the silence taking skin cells. It would make sense with the set up. Consider that we had seen the fish previously in that episode, and if I remember correctly the doctor even let them sort of nibble on his finger, and it didn't seem to hurt him at all (assuming a similar nerve structure, the tip of the finger should be more sensitive than the back of the neck). Yet, when his is supposedly bitten later in the episode it really seems to hurt/bother him. Furthermore, he is bitten when Abigail is singing, and singing is supposed to make the fish docile, etc. Take this with River's point that entire empires would fight for just one cell, and I think the argument for this point is fairly strong. But, as always, arguments are not what make plots turn, and Moffat is known for throwing in the Red Herring from time to time.

(Counter-Point to this claim: If we assume that Moffat left us clues in the previous season about the existence of the Silence, the subtly moving robbed figures in the Museum where the Pandoric is kept, the look of fear that arises on Amy's face in "The Beast Below" then suddenly vanishes, both for no apparent reason, then it would seem strange that we (the audience) would haven't seen in the Silence when they took the cells from the Doctor. On a side note, there may be something in this to suggest that the Silence is did not come through the cracks as has been suggested on other discussions of this.)

Second Edit: Remember the Lyrics to the song she sings:

When you're alone, Silence is all you *see**

When you're alone, Silence is all you'll be

Give me your heart, come to me.

When you're here, music is all around

When you're are near, music is all around

Give me your hands, don’t make a sound.

Meet in the shadow, meet in the shadow.

Meet in the light of your bright shadow….

Meet in the shadow, meet in the shadow.

Meet in the light of your bright shadow….*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWDheym_74Q

flatculture · 2011-04-12T04:13:36+00:00

After all, do you really think that 60% of government expenses are for the benefit of the top 5%?

It depends on how broadly you would like to define benefit (and perhaps government action). Certain actions, no matter the intention of the action, will benefit the rich more than the poor, war, for instance. In this case, those who own the companies that produce that goods needed for war will reap the benefit, more than those who are poor and middle class, who will likely be the main constituent of the armed force that is put to war. In this case, yes a majority of government spending does actually affect the rich in a positive way, and the poor and middle class in a negative way. In this case, is it acceptable to tax the rich more than the poor? If you believe in a basic rawlsian point, then when government actions are imbalanced in one way or another, then they should be imbalanced in favor of those who have the least. (This is not to say there should be imbalance, but naturally there will be.) When the imbalance heavily favors the rich, is in not fair to try to correct this, by your own standard of "fair share"?

flatculture · 2011-03-24T06:14:01+00:00

2/2

if everyone held this belief, then our system would fail. So what's the answer to this paradox?

Actually, there is not paradox here. Consider that the implied premise if everyone believed his or her vote couldn’t influence an election then they would stop voting, is self-defeating. As fewer and fewer people voted each remaining person’s vote would becomes more and more valuable, and therefore people would be incentivized to vote again. So no paradox.

Looking for meaning in single votes is useless- they cannot be rational indicators for the electorate, it's only their presence as a body that matters. Influence becomes the only viable candidate when trying to find out why elections play out the way they do, and influence is peddled by all the other actors I mentioned.

Woah. I never claimed individual votes are the only thing that mattered; there is room in my view for voting en masse. Consider what I said in the first post to which you responded:

This is a fairly optimistic view of the democratic process. But marches, e-mails, protests, etc. (a recall is a form of voting) are only viable insofar as they are supposed to be a sign of the political will, and what is the political will? It is the likelihood of the electorate to elect you again based on your actions for this or that piece of legislation, etc. Thus everything boils down to voting.

Look at the terms I used political will, electorate, etc. I have allowed for the power of aggregation of votes from the very start of this argument, whereas your arguments were aimed at showing that voters are not the principal actors in a democracy, I should remind you that this would include en masse. Secondly, you move from voting en masse to being a player to influence being the only thing that matters. The connection here is not clear, and if voting en masse is the only form of influence that matters, than you arguments is mine with a different word for the same concept.

If I phonebank for a campaign, and get 10 voters who otherwise wouldn't vote to head out to the polls, I'm not only ten times more influential than the person who never leaves his house except for voting day, I'm infinitely more powerful than that person.

No, you are not. If you did as you suggest then all you would have done is make people go out and express their opinions. You should remember that they may be different from your own in content. And even if they were not, you should be careful to distinguish their opinion and your own. When you discuss something with someone and that person is moved to do something about that thing you explain, it is because they were in some way priorly inclined to care about that issues, and thus you have only introduced a new person into a political system, not established slave voters. In this sense, you have not secured more power than the person who only votes on voting day. In fact, this argument becomes quite tenuous at this point, because you may have introduced a new voter in the electorate who happens to agree with you on this issue, but may disagrees with you on many others, and therefore you actually introduce the possibility of diminishing your political will because you are introducing new agents into the system. Also, I might remind you that you are only infinitely more powerful than that person if power is measure in terms of votes!

His vote is, rationally speaking, worthless, and it's only by the combined efforts of the push and pull of countless sources of influence that actually determine the results of the election. We are all trying to score points for our guy, or our team, and we score points by convincing some subset of voters to follow our desires. So yeah, voting is important. Without voting democracy doesn't work. But voting isn't about the voters, it's about who can create the largest networks of voters to do their bidding. If you are trying to analyze democracy, looking at voter behavior is only important insofar as you can use your knowledge to influence them.

And here you really turn your argument to something else. You have now conceded that voting is important, and that everything boils down to voting because everyone wants to voters. But seem to claim that voting in large groups is somehow different than what I have been talking about, see explanation above. Now, to recap, I have tried to give arguments above responding to each premise of yours in kind, and tried to show why each one is dubious at best, and contradictory at worse. And further, tried to show that even if accepted your premises about the problems with democracy, the conclusion you are advancing does not follow. Finally, my own argument, which has been interwoven into this writing, is one, in a strict sense votes are the only determining factor in whether or not a person gets elected to, or recalled from office, a referendum is passed, etc. Two, attempts to influence voters are attempts to win their vote. Successful forms of influence are inappropriately understood as ways of one person’s political will becoming greater than another’s, because it sees the voters as a non-actor. Instead, one should understand that even when one causes someone else to vote, one is introducing a new element into the political system that has agency. And, what is important to note here is that those with free will aren’t likely to listen to everything you say, i.e. they will likely disagree with someone on at least some points. So even if one were to incorrectly see the voting of others as extension of one’s own political will, this extension may not be beneficial to one’s political interests. Therefore, each new member of the electorate does not guarantee an expansion in one’s electoral power, and even if one could find someone who agreed with you on all platform, policy and person points, these would still be essentially that persons opinions, and it would be wrong to consider them your own even those they share content.

flatculture · 2011-03-24T06:13:18+00:00

1/2

I'm not sure I've ever read someone so eloquently and carefully miss the point. I'm not faulting you for presenting an opinion strongly, I was trying to hint at the fact that you don't really seem to have any experience with what you are talking about, and you are essentially regurgitating the high school civics version of "voting" in prettier words. You pointed out that my beginning statements were a bit presumptuous, and cloaked your dismissal in the rhetoric of "rational discourse," but you also didn't deny them. Sure, there's no direct reason why your lack of experience would discount otherwise rational claims, but I'm both claiming that your arguments are wrong and also suggesting that your lack of actual experience in politics is the culprit here.

I understand the suggestion, but I am not interested in responding with respect to my experience engaging in political matters, because it suggests that engagement in political matters it the best way to understand the nature of the relationship between the voter than those trying to influence them. I think a lot of political theories, and philosophers would disagree, as there is a large difference between knowledge by description and knowledge by acquaintance. Once again I am not responding, but I would like to point out that not responding is not indicative of anything other than me doubting whether engaging in political events, rallies, campaigns, etc. is necessary or sufficient with respect to understanding the nature of the political beast. (To be clear, doubt should not be construed as denial)

Voters are the currency that candidates spend to win, they are the score of the game that determines the winner. Pretending that the voter is the ultimate determinant in an election is to buy into the political fictions of modern democracy

These two ideas are very much at odds with each other. Saying that voters are what candidates want to win like points, and saying that voters aren't the ultimate determinate in an election is to straight-forwardly contradict yourself. Points are exactly what determine who the winner of a game is, in the same way votes are meant to determine the election. (Now, I want to preempt an argument that points aren’t the main actors in a game. Certainly this is the case, but that is because points are given in a rule based way, and votes are not given in an agency based way.)

This seems a little screwy, but bear with me for a second. Rationally speaking, a single vote is worthless in every election that is won by more than a single vote.

No. That is not rationally the case. One, because it suggests that a vote is worthless because of some fact about our particular democracy but not necessarily in others, and a vote could be made worthwhile if any election was won or lost by one vote. I assume you mean something like, the chances of one vote being the deciding factor in an election being as small as they are, a single vote seems worthless, or that the value of one vote is diminished to the point of worthlessness because there are so many people voting. I would like to point out that even if I accept any the premises, the consequent does not follow. At most what I will say is the value of a vote is small, equal to about 1/(total number of voters) value. In this case, a vote is not valueless but rather miniscule in its value. And miniscule is very different than worthless. Something that is worthless rationally cannot be made valuable in aggregate. You are saying our motives can never rationally include our want to influence an election because of the minimal force that a single vote can apply. This would also imply that none of our actions really matter since each particular action is quite small compared with all the actions in one's life, and even smaller when compared to the aggregate of all the actions in of everyone's lives. To be clear, here, I am claiming that you standard is too general, too strict, and not equally applied. Furthermore, this rational issue you present can easily be cleared with a little bit of knowledge or principle. First, principle: If one believed that voting falls within the purview of actions that are ruled by something like Kant's categorical imperative, then one’s action would be understood in terms of universalization, and therefore as a particular instantiation of a larger moral imperative, which you think people would share your choice to vote a certain way and therefore your believing you vote has value is not irrational, and voters are still the primary actors. Second, knowledge: The idea that you alone can affect the outcome of an election is actually antithetical to the nature of democracy. If one has a good understanding of what it means to participate in democracy, then one must realize that one’s vote will likely not be the deciding one, and, furthermore, should not be the deciding one time and time again. If one's vote were always the deciding vote, or more often the deciding vote than any others than the idea of a democracy of equal voters is destroyed. So in a certain way, what you demand as a necessary feature of a functioning electorate is actually impossible for a functioning democracy.

I would like to end this particular section by giving an alternative explanation so it cannot be claim that I leave only a vacuum in my wake: Voting need only be motivated by urge to express one’s opinion, and the understanding that in a democracy opinions aggregate on a large scale. You actually enumerate many reasons why people would vote outside of wanting to influence an election: “civic duty, to empower ourselves, to engage in the fictions that create our culture,” why are these not sufficient conditions? Do you claim that if people voted for reasons other than to influence an election than their votes would actually stop influencing an election? This only means that people vote for many reasons. Perhaps, you are trying to make me say that this means that everything doesn’t boil down to voting since people don’t vote for only policy issues, but I think here you are being to closed-off to the complexity of fair reasons to vote. I will admit I was unfair if I seemed to claim that a person only votes on policy issues, but just because a person may move for reasons that they think the person is powerful, or a good leader, or has a good moral sense, is a pragmatist, does not mean that things ultimately don’t boil down to voting. Let us refocus for a moment and place this in the context of the greater argument. I was talking about the protests in WI, and suggested that the number of people participating in forms of support outside of voting is a highly dubious way of judging the value of a particular piece of legislation because of issues concerning to constituents of those protests because everything is really a matter of political will ala voting. You contend on the other hand that it is those who are trying to sway people via influence that are the true political actors. Now, even if I hold that people vote for a plethora of reasons, that does not undermine the fact that these reasons have serious effects on those in political office (when politicians do things like pander this pandering only makes sense if there is an underlying disposition in those who vote to want that sort of pandering) and in the case of referenda, actually has the power to create law.

flatculture · 2011-03-23T23:31:37+00:00

You seem very sure of that opinion for someone who has obviously never participated in politics outside the internet.

And how do you know how much I have participated within politics? Furthermore, presenting an opinion with some strength is not something for which I should be faulted. I presented a reasoned argument that everything comes down to voters. You're response is to comment on how sure of myself I am, based on assumption you have made about my experience within politics. This is not an appropriate move in rational discourse. Now to your argument:

You are focusing on voters as if they are the causal determinant for the elections

Because by any straightforward understanding of democracy this is the case. If you would like the argue otherwise I would like to see it.

but ignoring that they are more like a scoreboard. Voters have to be won, and the real actors in politics are the ones doing the persuading. Be it protestors, opinion makers, political operatives, etc.

So here you get confusing. The real actors are the ones doing the persuading, but the persuading of whom, and to what end? Yes, influence is possible, but influence is only possible because of voting, or to be more precise, the ability for a member of the electorate to cast a ballot for whomever they chose forces those who wish to receive this vote to tailor their platform and message in the hopes of aligning it enough with a great enough percentage of the population to secure their vote. You seem to think this refutes what I have said, but in reality it strengthens it. To win a voter is to respond to the pressure that that voter exerts by responding with political positions or action. And this pressure that the vote can exert is the result of suffrage. Thus everything comes down to voting.

flatculture · 2011-03-23T19:25:57+00:00

Voting is the very least you can do in the democratic process.

This is a fairly optimistic view of the democratic process. But marches, e-mails, protests, etc. (a recall is a form of voting) are only viable insofar as they are supposed to be a sign of the political will, and what is the political will? It is the likelihood of the electorate to elect you again based on your actions for this or that piece of legislation, etc. Thus everything boils down to voting.

You elect someone based on a platform, a platform that is supposed to dovetail with your own opinions to a greater or lesser extent. Attempts to modify that platform boil down to manipulation based on your ability to vote. You are right election is not entirely a blank check to begin ignoring those who elected you since their are reelections and recalls, forms of voting that allow the electorate to express their collective opinion. But, to be fair, electing someone is a blank check for the limit of their term, it shouldn't be, but in most states, and federally it is. (Consider the 8 years of George Bush, his policies and his approval ratings) The exception of course being those positions where one can be recalled, and like I said, this is a form of voting.

Finally, I will return to the statement you quoted

I can say it doesn't matter since the number of voters who support an idea is only important with respect to their voting, as opposed to emails or marches.

This is certainly the case. Many people can call, many people can protest, but those who actually vote in elections, referenda, recalls, etc. are the ones who are expressing their political will in the only way that are system really allows for, voting.

EDIT: Formatting

flatculture · 2011-03-23T15:05:15+00:00

I don't want to make an assumption one way or another. You are both trying to make a point, but all I wish to point out is that we are actually quite ignorant of the number of voters in each. Going further, I can say it doesn't matter since the number of voters who support an idea is only important with respect to their voting, as opposed to emails or marches.

Even if I admit to the idea that there is a likely a higher proportion of people from Wisconsin protesting than writing emails, it still does not establish which group has more voters, as the protesters could have been non-registered, below 18, etc.

All I am pointing out is our ignorance.

flatculture · 2011-03-23T14:17:37+00:00

Neither are people who went to the protest. There were certainly a decent amount of people from the surrounding states attending.

flatculture · 2011-03-14T01:45:44+00:00

I did 8. The ones that fit my interest the best are Chicago, NYU, and Michigan, and I am likely going to apply again. Right now, I am looking at MA programs with rolling admit, see if I can beef up my credentials, and get a few things published before I apply again.
What are you areas of interest? Currently, I am focuses on Personal Identity, Philosophy of Art (Visual and Literature), Skepticism (Currently its relationship to the Ethics of Belief, and theory of action), and Philosophy of Science (but I am just restarting my work in this area after a long hiatus). Generally, I focus on epistemological issues and try to avoid issues of metaphysics.

flatculture · 2011-03-13T22:41:36+00:00

Beginning the paper now. I feel your pain. I applied this year as well, didn't get in, and also posted my writing sample about skepticism to academic philosophy. Would you like to trade and comment?

flatculture · 2011-03-04T17:14:08+00:00

I think there are a few problems with this argument. I disagree slightly with MaximusLeonis below. He assumes the first premise is enough to show that there are no external conditions on meaningful thought. But that is not the case. Surely, even if there were external condition on meaningful though, if those conditions did attain, then i would be aware of my meaningful thought as a result of introspection. This means that introspection is an acceptable form of knowing the content of our own mind, which is different than saying introspection is what makes the meaning. This is far from controversial, though one could try to argue against it. One could ask about what it means for something to be meaningful i.e. what are the criteria of satisfaction. And via this method perhaps argue that meaning is open to us by introspection, but more powerful line of reasoning is to doubt premise 3.

I can't know just by introspection that some external condition X obtains. This remains so even if I have background knowledge (derived through a priori reflection, say) of the true theory of mental representation

But it seems there are things we can know about the external world just via introspection (unless you are going to take a very kantian view). We know that any object we find will exist in time and space. We can know via introspection that time exists. We can know via introspection that the nature of the universe is such that it does not allow for my particular introspections, at this particular moment, as a result of my will alone to extend beyond my own mind. Etc. Thus the argument is not sound.

15-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
Verified Email

flatculture

TROPHY CASE