#bulverism

Um, okay?

I recognize there are all kinds of queer groups in all kinds of places, some with much more nastiness and aggressiveness within them than the ones I've been around, and queer people do have more reason than most to be resentful of Christianity although I think most queers are plenty intelligent and open-minded enough to understand that nowadays there are plenty of progressive varieties of Christianity that harbor no hostility towards queerness. Imagining that queer groups carry resentment toward Christianity over to resentment towards Judaism, even though in my lifetime I would say pretty close to 0% of the hostility to gay rights in the US has ever come from Judaism (okay, there was like Amy Wax who AFAIK didn't invoke Judaism to oppose it, and a couple of fire-and-brimstone ultra-conservative rabbis AFAIK, and almost all the remaining 100% was from conservative Christianity), and a lot of the hostility to trans rights doesn't even come from religiosity in the first place, feels to me really, really far-fetched.

And, I realize that asks have to be brief and yours didn't present itself as a full-blown persuasive essay, but your ask exemplifies Bulverism: you stated a claim without argument or examples (personal or public) and instead came up with this explanation that requires jumping to multiple psychological inferences.

I don't know, my impressions are colored by having been around a good few queer groups over the years and, while this has gradually cemented a general feeling of discomfort with queer culture over some of the pervasive social values involved (glorification of fragility/trauma and performance of it, obsession with identity markers/categories, and hyper-openness about everything sexual and neurodivergence and mental illness -related covers a lot of it), one thing I would stand up for them to say is they really excel relative to most social subcultures at being warm, welcoming, and inclusive, except of course not at all welcoming towards anyone or any belief they find intolerant (which, granted, they tend to judge as covering a wider scope than I might).

I mean, a decent chunk (though definitely not all) of this exposure was while I was dating Recent-ish Ex, who was quite ethnically and culturally Jewish, and also outgoing and extroverted with a number of social circles she was heavily involved in, the bulk of which were queer groups. And although the political ideology in these multiple queer groups was both super woke and quite leftist, never did I see the slightest hint of them pressuring anyone in their circles, let alone singling out their Jewish members such as my then-girlfriend, to affirm any anti-Israel beliefs. Granted, this is about in-person dynamics rather than what happens on social media, and this was in the earlier 2020's, a while before October 7th, 2023. (Recent-ish Ex had even visited Israel on birthright some years earlier. But I still remember vividly a particular moment of one of my first dates with her, when I broached the topic of Israel and the Middle East, and she flippantly said, "I don't give a shit about Israel." Meaning that she was completely apolitical where Israel was concerned. I think this was literally never mentioned again in any conversation in our almost-year-long relationship. Nobody in her circles appeared to pressure her to be other than apolitical outside of American issues. Okay okay, I'm going on a long time about a few individual examples; I know it doesn't amount to that much actual argument, and it surely became harder to be apolitical in late 2023.)

Certainly in more elite activism culture and on the national stage, there has been a lot of pressure in the queer community and even in progressive activism to fall into line on as many parts of the "omnicause" as possible, including anti-Zionism / being anti-Israel or pro-Palestine, and this is what wrecked the second Women's March in 2018 for instance. (The reply I'm about to quote below also mentions the Dyke March, which I recall less about, but must have suffered a similar blow.) Surely this dynamic takes place in smaller queer circles as well. But there's a pretty big difference in my view between requiring everyone in your social circles to take certain political stances on the actions of Israel and singling out Jews in your groups to disown Israel particularly loudly or disavow their Judaism or (as you put it) to act like Jews should not exist.

Here is a reply claiming some things I find somewhat more reasonable and plausible, from @ghostpalmtechnique:

The self-described "jewblr" part of this site does seem to be very insular and this tends to reinforce some incorrect beliefs, but it is also the case that I think non-Jewish users have a limited window in to the absolute tsunami of antisemitism that Jewish users are exposed to on social media, especially since October 2023. (I mean specifically from the left here, though also simultaneously in an environment where literal Nazis are proliferating.) Jewish people getting harassed out of LGBT spaces unless they ritually abase themselves by supporting anti-zionism is a thing that has absolutely happened -- see e.g. the Dyke March.

Okay, some of my response to this was covered above, including the part that implies I'd be curious as to whether "ritually abase themselves by supporting anti-zionism" is a thing that Jews in these spaces are singled out as obligated to do or just part of the whole "everyone here must be on board with all of the omnicause" thing I mentioned earlier. Because the former is pretty despicable while the latter is just obnoxious and misguided, and I can believe the former happens at least to some degree in some of these spaces, but it would also seem pretty easy/tempting to conflate the former with the latter, especially if you happen to be a person who believes that anti-Zionism/anti-Israel-ism is equivalent to antisemitism and doesn't exercise enough theory of mind to understand that a lot of people on the other side do not.

I also genuinely don't entirely get what "the absolute tsunami of antisemitism that Jewish users are exposed to on social media" means, especially the "exposed to" phrase -- aren't we all (Jew or gentile) in a particular social media space sharing that space and seeing the same posts? Or do you mean things sent as PMs/DMs or (on Tumblr) anon hate or something like that? If you don't mind me asking (and no pressure to answer or discuss it openly), is this something that you as a Jew are dealing with by being on Tumblr? Is this kind of abuse targeted generally at people whose profiles have stars of David and who post about non-political Jewish-culture things or sometimes in Hebrew or Yiddish, or is it targeted at Israelis or Jews whose social media presence revolves around advocating for Israel (a political position that many leftists, including Jewish leftists, view as utterly evil)?

(And how much of those two groups, on Tumblr or elsewhere, is overlapping? Jews are pretty highly represented on this "rat-adj" part of Tumblr, but relatively few have either "Jewish blogs whose theme is Jewish stuff" or blogs which profess strong support for Israel.)

Sorry, getting caught up in a train of thought, I acknowledge there's probably a lot of certain types of antisemitic internet abuse I'm not aware of here and am trying to get a clearer picture with these questions, not dismiss it.

Hi there!

There is a misconception about the fact that bias is in the way of genuine insight. And that you can dismiss arguments of others because they are "biased"

That, frankly said, is bullshit, and there is even a name for that: bulverism.

If you want to dismiss an argument you have to prove that it is wrong. Because even a biased person might have a valid argument.

Imagine a mathematician who says: Folks, let's tell you some very important truth: 1 +1 = 2.

And then someone would try to invalidate their axiom (as far as I know "1+1=2" cannot actually be proved) by telling them: Of course you would say that: you're a mathematician.

There are certain characters I like, and that influences what kind of thing I find interesting in the books. I am a Jonsa shipper. Of course I look for evidence in the books, but that does not mean that it is not there.

And honestly, this is always what it comes down to with the antis. They say: Of course you say that: You're a Jonsa shipper.

They never try to counter the argument. I've yet to come across an argument that really explains Jonnel x Sansa as something else than Jonsa foreshadowing. I've yet to come across a meta that convincingly argues that Jon "Winterfell belongs to my sister Sansa" means that Jon will usurp Sansa's claim in later books.

I made a meme:

LoL!

Dear nonny,

Yes agree! Trying to devalidate arguments because of bias (be it shipper bias or something else) is a so called 'non sequitur' which means that one does not logically follow the other.

If I am a shipper and therefore biased and someone tells me that my argument is not valid they claim that the motivation for me argueing in the first place actually effects the value of my argument which is obviously untrue. There is no logical connection.

To give an example : If I were to claim that 2 + 2 equals 4 and you would answer 'of course you would say that, you are a mathematician', it is perfectly clear that my bias does not really effect the truth of what I said. That kind of false rebuttal is called bulverism BTW...

And you know, many things are actually about shipping in literature. Often the love interests are more than 'just' love interests and act as stand-in for a certain decision or a mind-set and anyway in books that are set in a world where political alliances are forged by marriages shipping is actually at the core of the story. People in ASOIAF itself ship all the time. Robert Baratheon shipped Joffrey and Sansa as a self-insert for himself and Lyanna, Catelyn shipped Robb with Margaery, Lysa shipped Sansa with her son Sweetrobin,.... I could name more obviously. Marriage and alliances are a constant subject in ASOIAF and of course it is important....

You know, I don't get it either why people would think that it is not important... This book is not about relationships... Psaw! Everything is about relationships....

Would anyone who has a brain really claim that for their personal life it is absolutely unimportant who they end up with??? It is unimportant who their friends are? What kind of parents they had? This is an absolute ridiculous claim.

I mean if we are with somebody - even if it us only for a while - we see this person every day, their opinion influences us etc. etc.... And of course we all want our faves in fiction to be happy. I could never ship Jon with Dany because I think he would be fundamentally unhappy (and in a way the show proved me right) nor could I ship Sansa with anyone who would not value her (like her abusers)...

But sure it is 'only' about shipping...

Dear nonny,

of course people accuse others of being stupid, and I don’t have any beef with it, although I myself try to avoid being downright insulting. I would rather say something like “I think, this is a stupid assumption” than “you are stupid” for example. And even that I do only rarely, because being insulting doesn’t make the other party any more willing to think about your argument.

And it is not only Jonsas who believe in Political Jon: I alert you to an ask I had not long ago (x) that came from an non-shipper. And you would have to take my word for it, but I converted two of my colleagues to the political Jon Theory, non-shippers as well, although they believed that Da€nerys will become an antagonist, so it was not that difficult for them.

Just for the record: I do feel kind of insulted when people tell me that I can’t be a Jon fan, if I believe in the Political Jon theory. I know many Jonsas including myself who are Jon fans. For me it is the other way round: I cannot understand how you can be a fan of cunning BookJon and not believe in Political Jon. Yet, I do not run around and accuse Jon€rys shippers publically of not being real Jon fans. To me it is absurd to believe that Jon who was all about defending the North from book 1 and season 1 onward would not keep this in mind in all his actions in season 7.

The thing about freedom of speech is that you are allowed to voice your opinion, but you don’t have to. And you shouldn’t if all you can do is being insulting.

So, characters in fiction (show and books) can be interpreted and analysed differently, and this is how it should be. This is why we have discussions about interpretations and look for evidence in the books. Your take on Jon seems to me either that he is a cute cinnamon roll who is too honourable for his own good or since you don’t believe that boatsex was romantic that he thinks with his balls only and was maybe horny (I know other people who believe that).

This assumption might be wrong of course, and it might simply be that you - like many others - have not realised that Political Jon theory is not really a single theory but that there are variants of it, from Jon coming to Dragonstone with the purpose to manipulate D (which I think is not likely) to Jon playing the game only after the Wight Hunt when everything else had failed.

“Why do you think that is? It’s NOT because you’re smarter than the rest of us/the GA.” - Do you think that being an ESL doesn’t make me realise what you did there? You insinuate that we think that we are smarter than the GA, but you say that we are in fact less intelligent - doing the very thing you bemoaned as being common in ship wars. I don’t know why, but that made me think of pots and kettles.

I would say, that the reason for no one in the the general fandom being open to a real discussion of the theories of the Jonsa fandom is of a phenomen called bulverism (thanks to @occupyvenus to introduce me to that term). That means devalidating an argument because the person who put forward the argument is known to be biased. “It’s just your shipper goggles that make you see that”… Well, not taking an argument seriously, because the source is known to be biased is not taking that argument down. Actually it shifts the focus away from the argument to the arguer, but it is not really a counterarguement per se. In view of argueing it does nothing to the argument. Imagine a math professor saying: “1 + 1 = 2″, and the bulversim take on this would be: “Of course you would say that, you’re a mathematician.” If my memory of my school math is right 1+1=2 cannot actually be proven or disproven, since it is an axiom. But not to accept it because mathematicians have taught this for centuries would be… you say it… Bringing my bias into an argument we have is counterproductive, I have many biases…. I’m a European, I’m a woman, I have children, I’m against death penalty, I like how guns are controlled in my country…. I carry many ‘biases’ around… Bias can only be used as devalidating an argument if bias made me manipulate the evidence. But to insinuate that evidence brought forward from any shipper would be invalid? I prefer to compare shipper goggles to glasses. Some things you can only see with the right kind of lens.

I would also alert you this post, where I did collect some of the reasons why Jonsa in general is such a hated theory - which makes the GA unwilling to engage with us in a real discussion.

I would also say, that you are doing exactly what I argued against in my last post. You just put Jonsa shippers in a box and put a label on it (the label maybe being ‘NOT smarter than the rest of the GA’ or ‘ship biased’). The Jonsa fandom is a rather huge fandom and I’m convinced we have all kind of people in there, including some very talented people, as I’m sure there are in the Jon€rys fandom.

I’ve rarely seen so many misstatements being made by people on social media about a document -- a so-called “anti-diversity screed” where the author states explicitly that he’s pro-diversity -- which is freely available and which everyone has presumably at least skimmed. A lot of times these have come across as willful misunderstandings. The most common paraphasing of the main thesis that I kept seeing was “women are genetically inferior”. Among my multiple objections to this characterization is the fact that the author repeatedly used inflections of “oriented” to express his main evo psych thesis. It’s ambiguous whether “oriented” means “innately better at” or “innately more interested in”, but from the context of the author’s arguments I would lean towards the latter.

When asking myself how so many people could interpret rather clearly-written prose this uncharitably, I can only really think of one defense: extremely negative personal experiences to pattern-match to. In other words, someone’s past trauma (or the past trauma of a confidante) might well cause them to draw a connection with anything that reminds them of it, no matter how tenuous the connection. I may call this irrational, but I don’t really have the right to judge anyone for that and it would at least explain better where people are coming from.

(I realize this comes off a bit condescending and I’m coming dangerously close to engaging in Bulverism in this post, but I hope my genuine intent comes through -- sadly I was feeling much better with words like 9 days ago when I first wanted to write this.)

So my main question is as follows (it’s actually meant as a genuine question rather than a rhetorical one, and although I have some tentative suspicions about the answer, I am very willing to update my priors. Not that many people will read this here anyway, but I don’t want to deal with the reaction I’d get if I asked it on Facebook or somewhere.)

For those women in their 20′s and 30′s who have experience in tech or some STEM field, do you or any of your confidantes have any experiences with actually being explicitly told that you’re somehow “genetically inferior” in your field? That is, do you have any first-hand or second-hand experience with someone telling you (or with overhearing someone say) that you as an individual shouldn’t be in your career by virtue of being a woman? I’m not asking about some questionable comment that one could argue indirectly implies this claim, nor about vague muttering that “this type of science might be hard for you to make a career in”, but about literally making the claim.

Or closely relatedly, have you heard someone directly say that your environment would somehow be a better environment without women (or without some other minority) and that it is desirable to have fewer of them?

One point that I’ve almost never heard brought up in these discussions is that it is perfectly possible for men to hear such kinds of outlandish claims made, even if they are not the targets. In fact, it should be more frequent for the obvious reason that guys would probably want to hold such conversations behind women’s backs. So I should also ask guys in tech or other STEM fields whether they’ve heard explicit opinions being expressed that women shouldn’t be in their field or that individual women they know are less qualified by virtue of their womanhood. I am a man, and for my own part, the closest I’ve heard to these kinds of comments in my whole life are a very few that I can count on one hand which fall under the category of what I call “light-hearted sexism” (e.g. “*sigh* Have you ever noticed that women never seem to know how to operate a thermostat?”, though this was followed by “But I know there are plenty of great female engineers, so it’s not like women are incapable of handle anything related to mechanics”). These comments all came from outside of my academic environment, with the one exception of a former grad student colleague of mine who reportedly said (in a bar, to a woman in a humanities department) something about “girls don’t like logic” -- he was generally considered a reclusive alcoholic sociopath whom everyone in my department learned to completely ignore. Anyway, none of these examples quite fall under what I specified in my questions above.

Meanwhile I have heard the message loud and clear and consistently, from my early childhood in the early 90′s onward, that women can and should be given the opportunity to do anything a man does. But varying geographic regions may play a role, and I realize my skills at observation may be fallible, especially considering that of course I’ve never directly had to worry about this type of prejudice.