I also think it is a characteristic of woke - if the other party doesn’t appear to agree with you, they must need to reevaluate their whole approach so let’s talk about that instead of whatever thing we both disagree with. — Fire Ologist
This is, expressly, the problem I am having (and one I wanted to highlight within 'woke'). That is ironic, unfortunately as I think it is what's happening. I can't understand Antony's intention anymore, given the responses which have been directly on point and either claiming we have done his dance, or that it is not really what we want to do. It seems the circles continue, but I have two further pages to read before hitting Post Comment.
BTW - I do appreciate the effort, and I am working on a response. — Antony Nickles
Entirely reasonable, thank you.
There was a big controversy about a transwoman being allowed to compete a couple years ago. Last year the world surfing league tightened up the requirements though, to appease the anti-woke. All that over 1 surfer, and a longboarder at that. — praxis
I take issue with trying to frame the opposing side as unreasonable in this particular way (its not always a sin). A single male surfer taking a female accolade is enough, on the "anti-woke" side (though, that's misleading of a label). A single harmed child will have us looking at child abuse law. A single dead engineer will have us overhauling H&S. A single female being abused or harmed by a male in the bathroom should have the same response, to be consistent, or discuss
why they aren't similar. That last bit nveer gets done... And i can see several powerful responses (they just happen to not land for me). So, I think these sorts of arguments need to engage
why that position is so reprehensible. "Oh its only
x no. of people". Yes. But what those people are doing matters (and this isn't akin to an argument I am liable to make about prevalence causing alarm. We can ignore that, and assume its 1:1000000 for hte above to still run well, imo).
Thus the importance to imagine a context in which people are trying to decide what to do where the value of those criteria (above) for deciding what to do, in that situation, is up for grabs. — Antony Nickles
I would suggest for myself, and I think Leon is on this page, that this is just ignorant (not in a personal sense). We do understand these things, and we do not need to reinvent the wheel. The tension is between competing arguments (not even interests. I've tried to make this clear but if not: If you aren't willing to state your goals then I can't get on with your arguments. If you wont give me your arguments, I can't assess them against anything. Your 'interest' wouldn't help because
getting there is what's at stake, not "having interest" in x y or z policy for a, b or c reasons) and we can't assess arguments without knowing the goal the argument is meant to support.
You have to make a proposition: Lived experience is a valuable aspect of a person's exploitable wisdom.
We can get on with that. But you'll notice most arguments I have made (and, from what I see, Leon) address this squarely, and this is why we cannot understand why you're asking us to slow down the horses. If there is some significant different between "interest" and "goal" for you here, please make it explicit. I see the difference broadly, but for our purposes it just seems to be a difference in clarity:
Interest (in): Not being subject to arbitrary search and seizure
Goal: I am not liable to arbitrary search and seizure.
The former is a desire which isn't particularly apt for policy. The latter is a goal which absolutely is (as the constitution will evidence). If you mean interest in a more legalese sort of why, I do not know what (extending hte metaphor) estate you could be claiming an interest in, to get this discussion off the ground, without creating a scenario of
expressly competing interests in the way that "life" and "death" are express competitive notions. They cannot co-exist. The way I see this playing out is that if we had
this discussion first we'd all be looking at similar things:
For all to be treated with respect;
For legitimate power to be wielded in the face of arbitrary disparity/force
and all the rest that underpins most concepts of "policy". Once we have all this on the table, we can discuss what methods might get us there. The interests, themselves, don't tell us muc because we must break them down to this priors. If you're not looking for equality of opportunity, you can support many bigoted policies. If you're not looking for equality of outcome, you must drop some policies of force, as examples.
How is talking about a board going to help us get to where we want to go? — Leontiskos
The veil of ignorance, i suspect, is at play. And its not the worst premise for a discussion of this kind. I just think Antony is importing (maybe unconsciously) plenty of goals which he/they (others, not a gender joke) implicitly carry, without these base discussions. I'm doing my utmost to ignore those voices and discuss with zero on hte table, to begin with. What do you
want seems the right question.
As a courtesy I will say in summary (though I will not argue it here, as I have spelled it out in length above), wanting to first decide what we are going to do, or imposing criteria for how to decide that, is to skip over examining, in a sense, how the world works — Antony Nickles
Do you not notice that this fizzles out into a total nothing by the end? "how the world works" is not a reference we can make any sense of in this context. What about it, are you referring to? Besides that, I think you're wrong.
or draw in a certain demographic. — Antony Nickles
I think this is hte best argument for bringing in lived experience. The problem is that if that person is a dick, or a moron, or dishonest or any number of things, the board wont take their ideas on board very readily. If they are clearly bad economic ideas, or are typically irrelevant to the goal of the Board (quite common for DEI-type hires as best I can tell) then that person is ignored, and their complaints ring true to their politically-aligned based in that "See, they only hired me as a token for looks - they don't even take me seriously" where, you'll notice, there isn't even
room for discussions of hte merits or relevance of the person's experiences.
This is why
goals are far, far, far more important than criteria.
gets in the way of a broader practice of assessment. — Antony Nickles
I think this is the same mistake my would-be board member above is making: There is no reason to think that your descriptions here are in any way helpful to the goal you're after (coming to terms, it seems). But again, a perfect example of why not stating your goals clearly has muddied these waters. Your goal is "a process", not an end-point, so there's nothing we can adequately hold to the light for assessment. Your position seems to ruin the potential for a valid assessment.
I think this fairly clearly sorts a couple of things out, but makes the above comments (immediately above) all the more apt: you are shying from an assessment by continually trying to bring our attention to that which we have already gone over. Perhaps this is not to your satisfaction, and so FireOlogist's comment I've quoted above comes in. If we don't agree, we must not understand. That seems wrong.
This one is confusing. You seem to be saying that you posited a method, which I then carried out, while arguing against it. That's not the case. I ran with your example because you gave it. It should be clear I think its unhelpful and a bad example that leapfrogs the fundamental, base-level function of decision making: Goal orientation. If you're tlaking about how we decide on goals, that's really not what this thread or discussion are about. But it would explain the disconnect.
hat would be valuable to get clear about before judging how the board would go forward and what that looks like here. — Antony Nickles
Without a clear, articulated goal, this isn't helpful and there is no meat. it is window-dressing for a show we're not part of.
I would concede to suggestions from the group for agreement on a different example as long as it is a situation (not an “issue” abstracted from any sense of a possible context) about how to decide what to do in a particular case, i.e, with competing, say old vs new, criteria. — Antony Nickles
Then, unfortunately, I do not think you are here in good faith. That is specifically not what's at stake in the discussion, and exactly what we've been saying is problematic in your responses/approach. It comes across like you are not getting the joke, and trying to explain the pun in terms other than whimsy. The issue is what needs discussion. The 'situation' is entirely ungrounded and unable to be approached without a stated issue/goal for which someone's experience
might be relevant. This cannot be talked about without specificity (as you seem to acknowledge, but in a different place).
Appointing someone to a board based on "lived experience" is not relevant? — Antony Nickles
What board, for what purpose? Otherwise, no, clearly not.
But I think your idea that we will be able to decide what to do without a goal is simply incoherent — Leontiskos
I agree. I think the discussion is evidence in itself.
They should just enjoy it, like all of us who acquiesce to be advertised to.
They did the same thing (the advert) with Beyonce for Levi. The woke (such as you are referring) should just stop making shit up to get upset about and call people Nazis. It just shows us how bored and uninteresting you are. Its utterly fucking bizarre that anyone is making hte kind of comments they are about htis advert. Its selling sex. Not fucking Eugenics. You've got to be so bored - so incredibly bored - to find stretches that Mr Fantastic would be impressed by - to call people bigots.
I"VE RUN OUT OF TIME BUT I INTEND TO ADD TO THIS POST. IF YOU CAN, HOLD OFF ON RESPONDING UNTIL IMARK IT COMPLETE
EDITED IN FURTHER RESPONSES:
Though they might just not be granted certain authority, maybe of a final kind, but saying they “should not” or are unimportant, is perhaps to say they do not or should not have value (in deciding), which flies in the face of considering how they might or do in this case (or what case), if we imagine the board is considering adding lived experience as a criteria for appointment. — Antony Nickles
This is a really good example of you importing some assumptions on the part of your own scenario: We don't know what the board
wants. There is absolutely no basis to say the bolded without first giving a reason
why, Nothing is valuable
tout court. What is it valuable
for? I can only surmise you want lived experience to be
informative. About
what??? This is the basic problem with your entire approach. You want to have a discussion about nothing, and still make it substantial. It looks as if you're not willing to do the ground work here, or truly believe it isn't ground work. But that is logically unsound. If you do not state an end, criteria for
what will get us there are impossible. That's the impasse.
To date American Eagle is being tight lipped about it. — praxis
They've responded.
“’
Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans‘ is and always was about the jeans. Her jeans. Her story. We’ll continue to celebrate how everyone wears their AE jeans with confidence, their way. Great jeans look good on everyone.”
Good on them. Ridiculous reaction to the advert.
It was to try to offer a different way than just a philosophical framework which tends to overlook things based on the terms we bring to something. — Antony Nickles
Yep, but what you missed from my quote was "now" that I/we have addressed that squarely several times. I can't see why you would run the same stuff when it's been dealt with.
And I will leave y’all to that, because I hadn’t even figured out: “valuable” how? — Antony Nickles
This is because you wont do what I'm charging with being unwilling to do. We have brought that point up
to you several times in these pages. You seem to now be figuring out that this is an extremely important aspect which you had initially wanted us to forego.
Y’all think I’m trying to sandbag you, or set a trap — Antony Nickles
No. I think you're trying to have the discussion with having your own arms tied behind your own back, and not knowing it. There's no charge on you here, morally. It's about what you're not grasping in the discussion (from my perspective, naturally). I would also suggest I am not a 'y'all'
:)
I see; sorry I wasted your time with all this. — Antony Nickles
This is an unfortunate deflation. If this was your position throughout, then you clearly are not reading very well. I (and we, on my account) have
explicitly gone over what we're talking about and why. I've even pointed out that goals must, at some level, be arbitrary because they are prior to criteria on achieving them. You have proceeded as though boht that hasn't been said, and isn't the case. This is why I/we cannot understand what you are getting at anymore. It seems to be purely ignoring hte relevant responses you've been given.
It seems like a stretch to compare longboard surfing, something that doesn’t even qualify for the Olympics, to child abuse, industrial safety, and sexual assault. — praxis
It would be a stretch to say I was doing that. The comparison is the logic, not the content. You don;'t seem to be disagreeing that a single instance of trouble in the kitchen should have us investigating and preventing that trouble. And there's far more than one instance in all three areas people care about here (bathrooms, prisons and sport).
I don’t mind discussing the philosophy. — Antony Nickles
But your responses are making it clear you are avoiding this. Whether this is conscious or not, I don't know (or care, tbh). You're focussed on something utterly incoherent, and we've pointed that out to you explicitly. You do not respond to that, and continue on your journey to talk about criteria void any goal. Which is incoherent. Unfortunately, the posts Joshs' and yourself have been making have reinforced a sense that Continental and "deconstructionist" philosophy is almost entirely useless, other than for people who already agree to speak in some private language. That is certainly a shame, but not one i'm uncomfortable with. It's a "you don't get it" type of situation.
Obviously this wasn't to me, but it was ancillary to something which was so I'll chime in: 4. doesn't require rescuing. They shouldn't ever have been in that position. Had you said an MMA match, there's probably no gulf between 4 and a couple of the others. Its a male beating on a female. These are clearly irrelevant considerations though. The logic of why we have rules around adults access to children is the same logic as why we restrict male access to females. There is no force of reason which sets aside that presumption, currently. Yet here we are, arguing about it. If you care about safe spaces, this is quite ironic (not that you do, but it's a woke thing so worth mentioning).