The Cellar - View Single Post

it · 07-25-2015, 05:50 PM

Slightly relevant brain dump of an argument I had in my head and have no real context to get it out... If anyone here would like to pretend you've invoked Lewis's law for me to address, feel free to do so. Now...

i think the problem with Lewis's law is that the exact same principle would apply from the perspective of any movement which feels like it is fighting for a cause demanding a single mindset.
That is, if you are a x, and If someone speaks positively of x, it will naturally justify it, and if someone criticizes, disagrees or speaks about x negatively in anyway, it shows you have resistance against what you believe x stands for and thus x is justified in fighting off that resistance, because part of the cause is getting everyone else to agree with you. and given how positive your movement clearly is, or otherwise you wouldn't be in it, speaking about it neutrally is in itself negative because it demonstrates the speaker doesn't acknowledge how positive it truly is.
This will seem like that from the perspective of any movement: Libertarian and communists, the ancient Roman supporter of the emperors and those who fought to restore the senate, democrats, republicans, fundamentalists, militant atheists, pro-palestinians, pro-Israeli, feminists, MRA... It would even apply to arguments within feminist factions, comments made by individualist feminists will justify the cause of collectivist feminists and vise versa. All would feel that the criticism or resistance to their cause justifies the importance of their cause, by the simple act of showing that their cause does not have as much support and agreement as they would like it to have.
Whichever movement you agree with and might feel that said principle applies, you would not be able to explain why it wouldn't equally apply to any movement that resists yours.
And yet, you may have met plenty people on every movement within those who are open to criticism and don't invoke any direct equivalent of Lewis's law. The main mistake here is simple: approaching the argument from the assumption that your movement is right so dogmatically as to assume that regardless of it's content any criticism about your beliefs must be invalid and thus prove that not enough people understand how valid your movement truly is.
And yet, now you can be true to Lewis's 's law and dismiss this all, because in criticizing feminists for invoking Lewis's law, and invoking the suggestion that doing so is dogmatic and close minded, it clearly justifies the need to fight for feminism until people finally understand. ...Except that in doing this, you do not only justify the opposition to feminism on the simple act of resisting them despite the content of your disagreement, rather, you justify it because of it, reinforcing the stereotype of close minded militant fanaticism by actually been true to it, and in doing so, you are making yourself feel better about the cause of the movement at the cost of actual harm for the cause of the movement. Remember, it requires to assume that your movement is already correct in order to identify with the notion that all critique towards it is proof for it's misunderstanding. It acts to increase the loyalty of those already believing in it while alienating not just those on the other side but anyone who might be on the fence, not yet knowing whether what they'll think will be in terms with what the movement believes in and thus not being unseasonable to first asses how you relate to people who question you before they can be new recruits with new questions.

(This is particularly interesting in the case of gender politics because when almost everyone says they are fighting for equality but disagrees on the framework in which it is defined, there is a very fine line between the opposite side and sitting on the fence, as personally I know from experience).

07-25-2015, 05:50 PM	#174
it Banned Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 772	Slightly relevant brain dump of an argument I had in my head and have no real context to get it out... If anyone here would like to pretend you've invoked Lewis's law for me to address, feel free to do so. Now... i think the problem with Lewis's law is that the exact same principle would apply from the perspective of any movement which feels like it is fighting for a cause demanding a single mindset. That is, if you are a x, and If someone speaks positively of x, it will naturally justify it, and if someone criticizes, disagrees or speaks about x negatively in anyway, it shows you have resistance against what you believe x stands for and thus x is justified in fighting off that resistance, because part of the cause is getting everyone else to agree with you. and given how positive your movement clearly is, or otherwise you wouldn't be in it, speaking about it neutrally is in itself negative because it demonstrates the speaker doesn't acknowledge how positive it truly is. This will seem like that from the perspective of any movement: Libertarian and communists, the ancient Roman supporter of the emperors and those who fought to restore the senate, democrats, republicans, fundamentalists, militant atheists, pro-palestinians, pro-Israeli, feminists, MRA... It would even apply to arguments within feminist factions, comments made by individualist feminists will justify the cause of collectivist feminists and vise versa. All would feel that the criticism or resistance to their cause justifies the importance of their cause, by the simple act of showing that their cause does not have as much support and agreement as they would like it to have. Whichever movement you agree with and might feel that said principle applies, you would not be able to explain why it wouldn't equally apply to any movement that resists yours. And yet, you may have met plenty people on every movement within those who are open to criticism and don't invoke any direct equivalent of Lewis's law. The main mistake here is simple: approaching the argument from the assumption that your movement is right so dogmatically as to assume that regardless of it's content any criticism about your beliefs must be invalid and thus prove that not enough people understand how valid your movement truly is. And yet, now you can be true to Lewis's 's law and dismiss this all, because in criticizing feminists for invoking Lewis's law, and invoking the suggestion that doing so is dogmatic and close minded, it clearly justifies the need to fight for feminism until people finally understand. ...Except that in doing this, you do not only justify the opposition to feminism on the simple act of resisting them despite the content of your disagreement, rather, you justify it because of it, reinforcing the stereotype of close minded militant fanaticism by actually been true to it, and in doing so, you are making yourself feel better about the cause of the movement at the cost of actual harm for the cause of the movement. Remember, it requires to assume that your movement is already correct in order to identify with the notion that all critique towards it is proof for it's misunderstanding. It acts to increase the loyalty of those already believing in it while alienating not just those on the other side but anyone who might be on the fence, not yet knowing whether what they'll think will be in terms with what the movement believes in and thus not being unseasonable to first asses how you relate to people who question you before they can be new recruits with new questions. (This is particularly interesting in the case of gender politics because when almost everyone says they are fighting for equality but disagrees on the framework in which it is defined, there is a very fine line between the opposite side and sitting on the fence, as personally I know from experience).