<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On 2015-12-22 00:36, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAAc1gFhaN7Xr9tDboXk4_6u+guq4iejx2Hx-dzvoJMVkKAYfjg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 12:39 PM,
Tara Maya <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:tara@taramayastales.com" target="_blank">tara@taramayastales.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div>I’m a feminist. To paraphrase Mark Twain: “Women
are human beings. Worse I can say of no person."</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="gmail_signature"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_signature">### There is a chance for
industrial-grade misunderstandings when discussing these
subjects, so let's engage in some explication.</div>
<div class="gmail_signature"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_signature">Is it enough to believe that
women are humans to be classified as a feminist? Isn't there
something more the word, especially in its third-wave
edition?</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I think the key problem is that we quickly get into tribalist group
affirmation signaling when talking about classifications like this.
<br>
<br>
This is equally true for transhumanism: I was somewhat dismayed to
see that some of the French intellectuals I met recently tending to
think that transhumanism was a homogeneous group and everybody hence
could be taken to task for something stupid Zoltan Istvan or the
NBIC report said. So they could both feel superior by pointing out
elementary problems, strengthen their own group since the
alternative view is non-viable, *and* save time from trying to read
what we actually say and believe. Note how many online feminism
debates are done along the same lines. <br>
<br>
My approach to issues like this is to drill down to some particular
issue (e.g. affirmative action policies, voting rights), state my
views and ideally reasons why I hold them, and then go back up and
explain how this fits into wider systems of thought (e.g. my own
Bayesian libertarianism). Then one can compare that to other
systems, groups, issues or whatnot. But it avoids tribalism.<br>
<br>
I think one can be a reasonable feminist without having an opinion
about third-wave feminism. Just like one can be a transhumanist
without having a detailed view of Venturism. <br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Anders Sandberg
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Oxford University</pre>
</body>
</html>