I had a conversation recently with a woman who expressed fury at unequal pay. I said that it's often conflated with unequal earnings, which result from other factors. When I pointed out that unequal pay is unlawful in our respective countries and that there seems little or no evidence of it, she fell back on saying it is real. When I asked for evidence she blustered about it being hard to prove, but still real. This went on until I gave up.
The relationship between conclusion and premises was impossible to establish and I realised that an opinion is often entirely founded on the ethical valence of the conclusion, while bypassing entirely the reasoning that might get you there.
This seems to be at the root of all partisan proselytising.
Yes, I agree. I find that the most unpleasant discussions also happen to be the least transparent. Sometimes people want to believe things, evidence be damned, and they'll get really upset when you corner them on it.
That's it, and there's always a strange sense of them thinking that you are in favour of the bad thing you're sceptical about. In this way it is automatically deemed as misogynistic or racist to challenge many factual claims in those areas.
Somewhat disingenuous of Meghan to not recognize that distinction.
Yassine: "... if you credulously accept every right turn, but are severely skeptical of every left turn, you’ll just keep going in circles ..."
LoL. That's definitely a keeper. 🙂
Meghan: "I think that it’s unethical to pay another person for sex. ..."
As the old joke has it, for a million dollars? The issue is often less the "principle" undergirding the exchange itself than that the "quid pro quo" is often rather egregiously inequitable. More or less analogous to sweat shops -- no one seriously argues that people shouldn't be paid to work, typically, in garment factories, but the issue is that the workers be paid fairly and be provided decent working conditions.
Great post overall, though the compass analogy "A theory that is unfalsifiable is like a compass that always points north no matter what direction it’s facing" is off - that's what a good, useful compass does. The bad kind (well, one specific sort of bad kind) would be one that says whichever direction it is pointing is North.
Always a nice show of good faith to take down bad arguments whose conclusions you mostly agree with.
Interesting read! I'm familiar with both and actually really appreciate Meghan's work in other areas, but agree that on this subject she doesn't seem to be applying the same standards to herself.
I actually see in a lot of "public intellectuals" that they have some topics on which they are immune to change or especially slippery. Meghan here on porn/ prostitution, Harris on Trump, Peterson on Religion, Weinstein on Ivermectin (I'm actually not convinced he's wrong, just that he's too convinced he's right).
Another bit I wanted to call out is this question of not just falsifiability but what specific evidence would change someone's mind is a core premise of Street Epistemology, a mode of conversation based around pulling out the real reason a person believes something, and asking them to question how sound of a reason that is. There are loads of conversations on YouTube if you're interested.
This one is my favorite because it gets to the core of woke espistemology and the woman holding these beliefs is articulate and able to keep up. It really gets into the weeds of epistemology. It's part of 3 interviews of the same woman.
Seriously. I gave up partway through the first one. People like this are impossible for me to reason with. They can always reach for the "gotcha" argument of "well, you only think this way of understanding things is better because of your definition of better". Yeah, we get it, it's values all the way down. But if we can't agree on something as basic as, say, "two farmers grow identical crops on identical fields; one uses the scientific method to determine the best way to water and fertilize them, and the other prays to an ancient Aztec god; the one using the scientific method grows three times as much food as the other one, so clearly the scientific method is a superior way of understanding the world"...if you come back with "well that's only because you think that feeding more people is more important than blah blah blah" then you can go jump in a volcano.
I find this to be one of the more difficult debates to decide my opinion on. I think people like Aella are so concerned with people not being told what to do by anyone that they don't consider the possibility that some behaviors are harmful enough to be worth discouraging, even if they're not made illegal. But people like Meghan, and the more religious conservative people who oppose porn and prostitution for similar-yet-different reasons, can't really fathom the idea that people could have different views on sex than they do without it being some sort of trick or psy-op. I think anybody who's been online enough has probably seen some of the deviant weirdos who prowl the internet, so I'm willing to believe those who practice total hedonism are risking it altering their mental state. However, I also think having a sexual outlet is more important than the so-called "sex negative" people are willing to admit. Those who are not currently in a sexual relationship need somewhere to channel that, especially men, and no amount of exhortations toward perfect feminism/godliness are going to stop it. You can't just expect everyone who, temporarily or permanently, is not "getting lucky" to accept their loserdom and curb all sexual desire they have. Will jerking off to non-sexual images be okay in the porn-less society, or is that exploitative too?
> I think people like Aella are so concerned with people not being told what to do by anyone that they don't consider the possibility that some behaviors are harmful enough to be worth discouraging, even if they're not made illegal.
I don't find this to be an accurate representation of Aella's beliefs. She is definitely a libertine, for sure, but she does not cherish this value so highly that it swallows up everything else. I won't speak on her behalf but you can see examples of her plainly describing harmful behavior she thinks should be discouraged in the debate above, like for example when she's talking about how she screens for clients as a prostitute (~44 min mark)
I haven't watched this debate, but I'm basing it on her Twitter feed. She thinks any fetish or behavior is good and acceptable so long as it isn't being imposed on someone else, but first of all I think libertarians and libertines are selective about how something effects others (corporations ruining the environment is effecting others even if the government isn't doing it, secondhand smoke does effect others, people who have no say in others displaying their fetishes publicly are, in fact, having their own consent violated) and some behaviors are harmful even if you choose to do them (a woman who doesn't want her husband playing Russian roulette isn't just being controlling for no reason, she is trying to stop him from doing something terrible). I personally can sympathize with that compass for morality, but I can also see it probably has it's limits, and I don't get the sense she does. But I acknowledge I'm no expert on that perspective.
I had a conversation recently with a woman who expressed fury at unequal pay. I said that it's often conflated with unequal earnings, which result from other factors. When I pointed out that unequal pay is unlawful in our respective countries and that there seems little or no evidence of it, she fell back on saying it is real. When I asked for evidence she blustered about it being hard to prove, but still real. This went on until I gave up.
The relationship between conclusion and premises was impossible to establish and I realised that an opinion is often entirely founded on the ethical valence of the conclusion, while bypassing entirely the reasoning that might get you there.
This seems to be at the root of all partisan proselytising.
Yes, I agree. I find that the most unpleasant discussions also happen to be the least transparent. Sometimes people want to believe things, evidence be damned, and they'll get really upset when you corner them on it.
That's it, and there's always a strange sense of them thinking that you are in favour of the bad thing you're sceptical about. In this way it is automatically deemed as misogynistic or racist to challenge many factual claims in those areas.
Yassine: "... she believes that a consistent exposure by men to violent and/or extreme pornography ..."
Just about anything we do there can be too much of -- eating, drinking, golfing ..., "Big Macs", whatever.
"The difference between a medicinal dose of strychnine and a fatal one is also only one of degree."
http://asounder.org/resources/weiner_humanuse.pdf (Norbert Wiener's Human Use of Human Beings)
Somewhat disingenuous of Meghan to not recognize that distinction.
Yassine: "... if you credulously accept every right turn, but are severely skeptical of every left turn, you’ll just keep going in circles ..."
LoL. That's definitely a keeper. 🙂
Meghan: "I think that it’s unethical to pay another person for sex. ..."
As the old joke has it, for a million dollars? The issue is often less the "principle" undergirding the exchange itself than that the "quid pro quo" is often rather egregiously inequitable. More or less analogous to sweat shops -- no one seriously argues that people shouldn't be paid to work, typically, in garment factories, but the issue is that the workers be paid fairly and be provided decent working conditions.
Great post overall, though the compass analogy "A theory that is unfalsifiable is like a compass that always points north no matter what direction it’s facing" is off - that's what a good, useful compass does. The bad kind (well, one specific sort of bad kind) would be one that says whichever direction it is pointing is North.
Always a nice show of good faith to take down bad arguments whose conclusions you mostly agree with.
You're absolutely right, I did not phrase that correctly. I edited the sentence to make my point clearer, thanks!
> Always a nice show of good faith to take down bad arguments whose conclusions you mostly agree with.
Thx 🥰
Taking down bad arguments on one's sides is behavior I find extremely commendable, so I'm trying to be the change I want to see in the world
Interesting read! I'm familiar with both and actually really appreciate Meghan's work in other areas, but agree that on this subject she doesn't seem to be applying the same standards to herself.
I actually see in a lot of "public intellectuals" that they have some topics on which they are immune to change or especially slippery. Meghan here on porn/ prostitution, Harris on Trump, Peterson on Religion, Weinstein on Ivermectin (I'm actually not convinced he's wrong, just that he's too convinced he's right).
Another bit I wanted to call out is this question of not just falsifiability but what specific evidence would change someone's mind is a core premise of Street Epistemology, a mode of conversation based around pulling out the real reason a person believes something, and asking them to question how sound of a reason that is. There are loads of conversations on YouTube if you're interested.
Woah neat, I never heard of Street Epistemology before so I'm excited to check it out. If there's an example you particularly liked please link it.
This one is my favorite because it gets to the core of woke espistemology and the woman holding these beliefs is articulate and able to keep up. It really gets into the weeds of epistemology. It's part of 3 interviews of the same woman.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0evVEdDltzI&t=3s
Anthony has loads of these on his channel.
Here's one that's a bit more representative:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ch5LgWtS7Ws
Hope you enjoy.
wow these were so frustrating to watch, thanks!
Seriously. I gave up partway through the first one. People like this are impossible for me to reason with. They can always reach for the "gotcha" argument of "well, you only think this way of understanding things is better because of your definition of better". Yeah, we get it, it's values all the way down. But if we can't agree on something as basic as, say, "two farmers grow identical crops on identical fields; one uses the scientific method to determine the best way to water and fertilize them, and the other prays to an ancient Aztec god; the one using the scientific method grows three times as much food as the other one, so clearly the scientific method is a superior way of understanding the world"...if you come back with "well that's only because you think that feeding more people is more important than blah blah blah" then you can go jump in a volcano.
https://twitter.com/DainFitzgerald/status/1619422922304815104?t=a8SMBmksHv6cjjTJGjC-lw&s=19
I had plenty to work with without touching the awful "are you autistic?" question.
I find this to be one of the more difficult debates to decide my opinion on. I think people like Aella are so concerned with people not being told what to do by anyone that they don't consider the possibility that some behaviors are harmful enough to be worth discouraging, even if they're not made illegal. But people like Meghan, and the more religious conservative people who oppose porn and prostitution for similar-yet-different reasons, can't really fathom the idea that people could have different views on sex than they do without it being some sort of trick or psy-op. I think anybody who's been online enough has probably seen some of the deviant weirdos who prowl the internet, so I'm willing to believe those who practice total hedonism are risking it altering their mental state. However, I also think having a sexual outlet is more important than the so-called "sex negative" people are willing to admit. Those who are not currently in a sexual relationship need somewhere to channel that, especially men, and no amount of exhortations toward perfect feminism/godliness are going to stop it. You can't just expect everyone who, temporarily or permanently, is not "getting lucky" to accept their loserdom and curb all sexual desire they have. Will jerking off to non-sexual images be okay in the porn-less society, or is that exploitative too?
> I think people like Aella are so concerned with people not being told what to do by anyone that they don't consider the possibility that some behaviors are harmful enough to be worth discouraging, even if they're not made illegal.
I don't find this to be an accurate representation of Aella's beliefs. She is definitely a libertine, for sure, but she does not cherish this value so highly that it swallows up everything else. I won't speak on her behalf but you can see examples of her plainly describing harmful behavior she thinks should be discouraged in the debate above, like for example when she's talking about how she screens for clients as a prostitute (~44 min mark)
I haven't watched this debate, but I'm basing it on her Twitter feed. She thinks any fetish or behavior is good and acceptable so long as it isn't being imposed on someone else, but first of all I think libertarians and libertines are selective about how something effects others (corporations ruining the environment is effecting others even if the government isn't doing it, secondhand smoke does effect others, people who have no say in others displaying their fetishes publicly are, in fact, having their own consent violated) and some behaviors are harmful even if you choose to do them (a woman who doesn't want her husband playing Russian roulette isn't just being controlling for no reason, she is trying to stop him from doing something terrible). I personally can sympathize with that compass for morality, but I can also see it probably has it's limits, and I don't get the sense she does. But I acknowledge I'm no expert on that perspective.
> fundamentally, I think that it’s unethical to pay another person for sex.
...It's of course completely ethical to do nothing about gender differences which make a significant amount of men miserable...