Re: Pronouns & sexuali

> From: Sai Emrys <saizai@...>
> The point is that if you consider any popular debate on these topics,
> the views I gave are implicit in everything both sides say. But in
> order to rebut the others' arguments, you would first have to adopt
> their view (if even just for the sake of argument), and NOBODY ever
> does this. It is an implicit war not over the results of how these
> views play out, but over which view one ought to adopt.
Never say "nobody." I do this all the time, and I've seen others do it as well.

I'd go further, but hey... NCNC, right? :)

As to the fat man: I wouldn't push him, but not for the reason you give. Feel
free to contact me privately if you want more information.

> The ObCL question is, to rephrase:
>
> Would it be possible - or have you tried - to create a language in
> which these kinds of implicit, unacknowledged arguments about framing
> and worldview were impossible?
Again, it depends. How broad or narrow are your frames? I think you're assuming
dichotomous perspectives, but most topics are much more complex than that. For
any given controversial topic, there are numerous reasons for the "pro"
position and the "con" position. For instance, many feminists are against
pornography; many extremely conservative Christians are against pornography;
many moderate Christians are against pornography; there are other people who
are likewise against pornography. However, their reasons differ (as to the
first three groups, I could cite the underlying axioms that are often in play,
but that's not the point... the point is, there are a lot of weighted axioms
leading to a lot of frames out there; two people with very similar axioms may
wind up on opposite sides of a specific debate, and two people with very
different axioms may wind up on the same side of a specific debate).

> I'd like to think that yes, one could make indication of what frame
> one is using linguistically explicit.
Conversely, I wouldn't want such a language, because it would shortcut even more than we
already do. Postmodernism, for instance, has its own vocabulary set. This has
several detrimental effects: It makes it difficult for someone to enter a
dialogue on postmodernism, and if someone uses a piece of pomo jargon, an
anti-pomo person will often color all further comments from that person as
"pomo tripe." The latter happens quite regularly in the more sensitive topics
you've mentioned.

To a certain extent, though, such linguistic framing already takes place, in the
form of key jargon words or phrases that reveal particular schools of thought.
The use of "pro-choice" and "pro-life" is a blatant example: Each terms
summarizes one of the main underlying axioms of each position.

> But I'm afraid I'm skeptical of that kind of meta-thinking being
> commonplace even in a conworld.
I think it's more common in this world than you suspect. They're mostly those
people sitting quietly on the sidelines while the extremes scream at each
other. :D

-- Paul

Reply