zlacker

One of the big problems with this entire conversation is the definition of terms. The word “white” has been defined hundreds of ways within the “woke” literature and multicultural academics - some of them having no connection to skin color. The nuance and depth of thought that has gone into these academic discussions is elided and you end up with “be less white” which is clearly and obviously inflammatory to a whole host of people. That nobody ever defines terms clearly causes everyone to talk past each other and the conversation becomes immediately divisive and counterproductive. There is a real conversation to be had here - but we’re not having it.

>>germin+(OP)
You're correct, but I think you're missing that this is done intentionally. I've heard it referred to as "humpty-dumpying", referring to the character is Through the Looking-Glass:

> "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

It's equivocating and a preemptive setup for a Motte and Bailey. You can then say blatantly racist things like "be less white", the Bailey, and when called on it, retreat to "oh well when I say white I don't mean white, I mean <some tortured definition>", which is the Motte.

If it weren't intentional there would be very little reason to recycle words that already have established meanings and use them to mean something that doesn't explain the meaning with nuance, but supposedly changes it entirely.

>>seneca+G5
Perhaps, but I think that extends too much (nefarious) intentionality to it.

This kind of discourse has decades of academic background, but has only been culturally prominent in recent years. I am more inclined to believe that most folks are just repeated poorly understood half knowledge than engaging in subtle logical gamesmanship like Motte/Bailey. The whole public conversation is at the “Expert Youtuber” phase of subtly and sophistication.

>>germin+28
> The whole public conversation is at the “Expert Youtuber” phase of subtly and sophistication.

Ha, well said.

> This kind of discourse has decades of academic background, but has only been culturally prominent in recent years. I am more inclined to believe that most folks are just repeated poorly understood half knowledge than engaging in subtle logical gamesmanship like Motte/Bailey.

I don't disagree. Most of what we see is people regurgitating arguments they only tenuously grasp. I do believe the people initially generating those arguments are doing exactly as I described though. In fact, the first time I read about this concept it was from Nicholas Shackel (first described Motte and Bailey) showing Foucault using the tactic.

>>seneca+G5
To give some balance, we do that too as computer people. The question "what is a computer" has increasingly refined and sometimes contradictory answers.

To the layperson, it's a box that can run software and probably had blinking lights, and that's good enough. Ask an engineer, they'll talk about RAM and CPUs. Ask computer scientists, and they'll talk about Turing completeness. Or even say something seemingly contradictory to an outsider, like "computer science isn't about computers". And even among experts, you'll get disagreements for things like "is a calculator a computer? An FPGA? An abacus?"