In my great foresight i already basically wrote up the long one before deciding to go with the above, so i'll just finish that now.
what is your preferred language?
That would be English.
In case that wasn't what you meant to learn: i was raised with German as my first and only language. At eleven years old, i began learning English at a German secondary school. A few years later (uncertain how many exactly) i began to actually learn English, outside school, mostly using literature and internet content. And yes that's primarily written language. Speaking and listening to spoken English remains more difficult for me (seldom practice that) but i have been complimented on my wordiness even in that.
I could have looked up an entry for "pernicious" in an English dictionary just as easily as a translation. Using translations most of the time is now out of habit rather than necessity.
My preference for English isn't universal (so the first line is a bit contrived) but for written content especially net-wise, i do now prefer reading and writing English most of the time. The preference is certainly informed by jargon both in software development and obscure variants of feminism etc being primarily available to me in English. (Software jargon is typically used as untranslated English loan words in modern German today, and about feminism jargon in German i don't even know because i too seldom examine that.)
And yes i'm well aware that i deviate from English language norms, most notably in not capitalising some pronoun, quote mark usage, using too many commas, generally many long and unwiedly run-on sentences, and using "complicated" words often. Guess which of these won't stand out here and is the last one. Some of the listed quirks are my conscious decisions, others are my conscious decisions not to do much against them.
That's everything relevant i can think of now. So that was the long answer!
Nice catch there.
Took me until after i'd read it the second or third time, but once it's recognised, it seems fairly intuitive to me that it might have been intended.
Your own reaction seems like a good example of a much more productive reaction, but it does have some rather limiting contextual requirements.
I'm not sure i understand which reaction you mean. And my best (only?) guess on the contextual requirements is the context of this conversation on this platform (or: community), but i'm even less certain here, so i would like to ask you to please make both points more explicit.
attempting to establish a correlation between [...] and the ability to have or frequency of having [orgasms]
Sorry, there was some sort of malfunction that made me not appreciate the worth of that study in an overt way any longer after reading this part.
If you don't mind saying, what is your preferred language?
I don't, but first you have to choose whether you want:
the mathematician's answer only,
the short answer, or
the long answer.
(Lower-numbered answers are presumably included.)
I find it highly plausible that an ideologies own arguments could be interpreted as satire if there were impostor-suspicion (which the test would cause).
I was aware (though i didn't think it through to that it might be interpreted as satire). But the ideological Turing test has been described as a conversation with six candidates, so in this thought experiment the five other feminists would also be suspected, not just the one we're testing. (The readers i understand to initially have no reason to particularly suspect any of the six more than any other.)
And in a way, that one feminist doesn't differ from the other five. Indeed she could have equally well be selected as one of the five instead. (It is unclear to me whether we would tell the tested feminist that she is being tested.)
I feel like I can't say this without it being interpreted as a jab at feminism,
Well, personally, i love good jabs at feminism! And "good" here does not necessitate "nice".
but I think such a test where you arouse a bit of suspicion and then play back some arguments and see if they are accepted or accused of satire would be a good discriminator of something (I'm not sure what). What would it mean when an ideologies arguments can't be taken seriously unless you're sure the speaker is sincere?
You seem to leave out who the readers are supposed to be, and what kind of qualification about the ideology they would have to have. Ignoring that omission and assuming an arbitrarily "competent" reader, it would presumably mean that the ideology tends to be rather silly?
I know I can't charitably describe the arguments for the idea that discrimination against historically privileged groups is not a thing,
I think i also can't charitably describe arguments for that idea, as it hinges too much on something "historical". This is an inaccurate position to begin with, so the failure to argue well for it is not relevant. I mentioned some of this in an earlier comment. Quoting myself from there:
[...] i still believe that it would not pass, as i noted in my parens remark. This is because i think that none of "[institutional] power" or "prejudice" [against a group] can adequately be described as "historical disadvantage" alone. When they write "institutional power" as well as "power plus prejudice", they decidedly are not referring to something that lies purely in the past (indeed the present-day components are arguably the most important, though not the only interesting, ones) . The adjective "historical" in your usage seems to me to be incompatible to that.
This applies similarly to your wording regarding "historically privileged groups" (regardless that it is a variation on the "historical disadvantage").
I'd be interested what real feminists would say on the issue,
Well, it is said that there's one in my mind.
(and then whether that would be accepted by other feminists as representative of the ideology).
This is complicated by differing flavours of feminism, which i mentioned in your comment's parent (to handwave them away for the thought experiment).
I think that core statements i make about my feminism would usually be accepted "as representative of the ideology" (both feminism generally or my kind of feminism) by some people close to me, which happen to have similar ideological views. (How could that happen?!)
At the same time, it is plausible that lots of feminists would disagree. Hence claiming to be accepted "as representative of" the entirety of feminism might be very misleading then. Accepted by whom? Some majority of arbitrarily selected readers?
Anyway, when i initially wrote your comment's parent, i prepared my actual "submission" to the test already (but then decided to delay sending it). So here it is, adjusted:
[My] rationale for the 'one-sided' definition of sexism would be more along the lines of the mentioned "prejudice plus power", or "institutional power", or, say, "structures of kyriarchal (here incidentally also: patriarchal) domination which are frequently propagated by (plausibly subconscious) socio-cultural memetic effects which normalise/privilege particular traits".
I made up half of that last one, naturally. I consider this entire blurb relevant to the sexism definition because just "institutional power" seems too vague and hence could be misleading. The last one (my true one ?) traces more of the underlying ideology, or at least more explicitly.
Most feminists tend to be less verbose in a context like this.
allowed me to notice that it seems highly likely that nearly all female feminists I've encountered in person with common knowledge of such were mostly of the kind that had one or few strong very bad near-type personal experiences with men, or many small but memorable such near-type experiences.
Depending on how bad you consider "very bad" and how memorable you consider "memorable" as to make this "kind" be applicable to a woman, it might be the case that a significant part of all women (regardless whether feminist) are of this kind. There might even be studies or what backing such claims up, though right now i'm not inclined to search for any.
In rough vulgarization, Near mode is immediate observation and sensation, Far mode is abstract knowledge of something.
Thanks.
Saying something like that is exactly the kind of behavior I'd expect to cause the kind of reactions / treatment / behavior I've described in earlier posts.
It's good to know that you know that. Your wording here might mildly suggest that you disagree with such reactions to that behaviour on some level, but i might just be imagining that. And either way it's not of much relevance.
Thank you. For now i'll work with your explanation for this context specifically.
Thank you for this.
The term "patriarchy" is commonly used by feminists other than radical ones.
The term "pervasive" is commonly used by me (i'm also not a radical feminist), not only in reference to (traditional) sexism. And more on topic, i think i read it now and then from many non-radical feminists as well.
I had to look up a translation for "pernicious" in a dictionary. This indicates that before i rarely if ever read it at all, even in some content i read that's authored by self-described radical feminists. Interesting.
I'm not used to the combination "subconscious motive", but claims of something that can be (and is) called subconscious going on, and that this propagates sexism, are fairly common in my corners of feminism.
Stances such as "you're wrong and harmful [...]" are fairly common among various radical groups (here the term radical on its own instead of as in radical feminism only). In wider feminism they might indeed be less common, or at least less commonly expressed (to you).
I think your characterisation of the "central accusatory behaviour" is an understatement. Radical feminists as far as i can tell seem to share my opinion that an ideal rejection of (othering/normative) societal indoctrination is "impossible" to attain currently (or more precisely: impractical).
the whole debacle centered around eridu in Yvain's Worst Argument in the World article,
Ah, the debacle again (or was this comment written earlier than your other one i answered? eh). Still not inclined enough to search for the relevant content all on my own, though.
I'm probably not the best person to paint a clear picture of the ideology and I probably wouldn't pass an ideological turing test,
I assumed so. So that's exactly what interested me in my request.
but if you're looking for a "what most laypeople probably think", this might be pretty close.
I'm ambivalent about that. At first i thought your articulation, if inaccurate, seemed closer to the truth than "what most laypeople probably think". Rereading your text now i don't really find anything to support that, though. But it's interesting material for me nonetheless!
Thank you. This contains some very interesting parts.