Scott Sumner had a latest submit about how folks get so hung up on the best way to outline phrases, or what labels to connect to sure concepts, that they lose sight of precise situation at hand. I largely agree, and I feel a vital ability to develop is the power to “taboo your phrases,” as Eliezer Yudkowsky as soon as stated.
Very briefly, Yudkowsky imagines two individuals who appear to disagree with one another over whether or not the proverbial tree that falls with no one round to listen to it nonetheless makes a noise. Two folks argue with one another about it, one saying sure and the opposite saying no. However the one saying “sure” is defining noise to imply “acoustic vibrations,” whereas the one saying “no” is defining noise to imply “auditory expertise.” Each events really agree in regards to the state of the world. They each would agree that the falling tree generated acoustic vibrations and didn’t generate an auditory expertise – however as a result of they’re utilizing the identical phrase (“noise”) to explain these completely different phenomena, they’re going in circles over a disagreement that doesn’t really exist.
Now, you’d count on this dispute to be simply rectified as soon as they realized the supply of the confusion. And on this particular case, it’d even work out that approach – as soon as they realized they’re simply utilizing the identical phrase to imply various things, they’d additionally understand their dispute has been dissolved and go on with their day. Wouldn’t or not it’s odd if as an alternative, they ended up beginning one other argument insisting the opposite particular person’s definition of “noise” was objectively incorrect?
That’s fairly unlikely to occur as a result of no one feels personally invested in how “noise” is outlined. But it surely occurs on a regular basis in political discussions, as a result of so many phrases, as soon as politicized, carry an emotional valence with folks. Sumner’s submit targeted on whether or not or not “dependancy” is correctly categorized as a “illness” versus a “character flaw.” Somebody with a illness is routinely coded sympathetically, whereas somebody whose issues come up from character flaws is coded unsympathetically. Thus, folks combat one another tooth and nail over the semantic situation of what constitutes a “illness” as a result of they wish to help a extra (or much less) sympathetic view in direction of folks hooked on medicine.
We see the identical factor play out in political disputes. For instance, racism is a really charged, extremely valanced phrase. Everybody agrees that racism is dangerous – which is why there’s a lot livid dispute over what’s or isn’t racist. To efficiently model some concept or motion as racist is an automated victory within the debate over whether or not or not it’s good or dangerous.
For instance, suppose you assume equal outcomes is intrinsically good, and also you wished to persuade different folks to assume the identical approach. A technique to try this is to have interaction and refute arguments made by the Princeton thinker Henry Frankfurt that equality of final result has no intrinsic worth, or the arguments by Michael Huemer in help of the identical conclusion. Or you’ll be able to skip all that and demand that unequal outcomes are racist. That’s, you’ll be able to declare not merely that unequal outcomes could be a outcome of racism – the declare is that unequal outcomes simply are racist, by definition. And if unequal outcomes are racist, which means they should be dangerous, as a result of something racist is dangerous. You’ll be able to merely outline your aspect of the talk into victory.
This seems within the worldview of Ibram Kendi. By Kendi’s lights, equality (treating folks equally with out regard to race) isn’t the purpose. His purpose is fairness (treating folks otherwise in accordance with race to get equal outcomes). In consequence, he thinks discriminating on the idea of race could be a good factor – and if racial discrimination might be good, which means racial discrimination can’t be what it means to be racist. He says this very plainly, stating “racial discrimination shouldn’t be inherently racist” as a result of what really issues is the final result of discriminating on the idea of race – i.e., “whether or not the discrimination is creating fairness or inequity. If discrimination is creating fairness, then it’s antiracist. If discrimination is creating inequity, then it’s racist.” If discriminating towards folks on the idea of their race results in extra equal outcomes, and unequal outcomes are racist, you then’d must be a racist to be against racial discrimination. And all of us agree that racism is dangerous, proper? Therefore the push to outline “racism” not by way of processes, however of outcomes.
Or say you’re somebody who’s against an “both/or” mindset. You’ll be able to attempt to persuade folks to desert such a mindset by means of arguments and purpose. Or, you’ll be able to take a shortcut and simply declare that utilizing an “both/or” mindset is definitely a approach of selling white supremacy tradition – and since all of us agree that white supremacism is a nasty factor, we don’t have to do any extra work. Framing one thing as both/or promotes white supremacism, and white supremacism is dangerous, due to this fact the both/or framing is dangerous. Case closed.
In fact, such techniques can lead actions to eat their very own tails. In spite of everything, one key level of Kendi’s worldview is that there’s an all encompassing and mutually unique binary. You’re both an antiracist, or you’re a racist – there aren’t any different choices and no center floor. Once more, he says this plainly in his e-book, writing “One endorses both the thought of a racial hierarchy as a racist, or racial equality as an antiracist. One both believes issues are rooted in teams of individuals, as a racist, or locates the roots of issues in energy and insurance policies, as an antiracist. One both permits racial inequities to persevere, as a racist, or confronts racial inequities, as an antiracist.” So, by framing the difficulty of racism as an both/or dichotomy, Kendi can also be selling tenants of white supremacy tradition. To be clear, that’s not really my view – I don’t imagine Kendi promotes white supremacy tradition. My level is solely to indicate the absurdities folks can lure themselves in when making an attempt to play these definitional video games.
Sadly, I don’t know of a great way to get folks to drop the luggage and affiliation connected to phrases and phrases and deal with the underlying points as an alternative. However I’m informed recognizing an issue exists is at the least a vital step to fixing it – and that is undoubtedly an issue that wants a repair.
