This is a special post for quick takes by 1nsanereader. Only they can create top-level comments. Comments here also appear on the Quick Takes page and All Posts page.
Why do people assume discussing something means justifying it?
I’ve noticed that when people bring up a topic for discussion, especially historical or social topics - others sometimes assume they’re trying to justify something rather than just explore it.
For example, i recently asked whether lead poisoning could have unintentionally reinforced sexist stereotypes in history. My question wasn’t about justifying sexism, just about whether environmental factors might have played a role in how people perceived gender. But i got accused of trying to justify sexism, even though i explicitly said multiple times i wasn’t.
Why does this happen? is it just because the topic is sensitive? or do people have a hard time separating ‘asking about something’ from ‘supporting it’? i’d love to hear thoughts on this.
You might find this post interesting and relevant if you haven’t seen it before: https://www.econlib.org/archives/2017/04/iq_with_conscie.html
Interesting perspective! I get why people are wary, but it’s frustrating when that leads to unfair assumptions about genuine questions. Thanks for sharing this!
Off the top of my head it's because people are weary of Chesterton's Fence/Sealioning (feigning 'just asking questions' when actually they have an agenda which they mask with the plausible deniability of feigning naive curiosity) and as you say - the topic being sensitive so it generates a 'ugh field' are two pillars of what makes certain topics difficult to discuss.
I've noticed this pattern on a lot of, usually political topics but it could also be some kind of interpersonal drama/gossip, someone asks a you question which appears to be an invitation to get your opinion on something.
"Hey what do you think about Blork?"
You give a non-commital answer, but that neutrality is enough and they are off and away with their soliloquy on why Blork is either the greatest thing to happen to Western Civilization or the very end of it. Very rarely is it followed up with: "What do you like about Blork?" or "How do you friend's feel about Blork?" or any other question question which is rooted in a genuine desire to learn about Blork rather than a pretense to soapbox on it.
The amount of times that I've had someone monologue to me a "you know everyone gets it wrong about [thing which has a bad reputation]" despite (or perhaps because) I haven't shown any judgement, and despite the fact I have shown no interest or curiosity in discussing the topic further. I think this has taught people to be very on-guard about any 'sensitive' topic. After all, now if I have someone ask a seemingly innocent question about Blork, I'm going to shut down the conversation least I risk another monologue.
This naturally makes it very hard for people who want to understand why Chesterton's Fence is there like your situation with lead poisoning being a cause of sexism: curiosity is mistaken a veil of plausible deniability for a ready formed a position.
What I'm forgetting is there's the plausible deniability on the other side, overcompensating and exaggerating their disgust or even projecting their own feelings.
"Why are you justifying sexism? I wouldn't do that, because I'm not sexist. Do you see how not-sexist I am by accusing you of being sexist? Methinks I am not protesting too much. Do you see how progressive I am"
Take for example a controversy on Australian television involving Harry Connick Jnr, where a amateur talent contest segment of a variety show features a imitation of the Jackson 5, with the backup dancers in blackface, and the singer in exaggerated white-face. Connick Jnr was one of the judges on the panel and was furious, even demanding an on-air apology. Others pointed out that Connick may have been burned from his own past doing blackface on SNL.
Now the Connick Jnr example isn't a discussion, but it does add another possible pillar to why people make assumptions about intentions on broaching sensitive topics.