@nagirin re associating the word with antisemitic posting: are you Jewish? as a Jew myself, I obviously don't speak for all of us, but it doesn't bother me at all. I've heard the argument that it derives from 4chan "goyslop," and also I don't personally find it convincing given that the word has been in use for far longer than that to mean similar things.

also, I get that the phrase is reductive, and also I don't feel like LLM-generated content requires an explanation at this point as to why it's bad - that is, generally riddled with errors and derivative of other people's art and writing.

@YKantRachelRead I am ethnically Jewish though I don't think whether someone is or isn't should matter in this regard.

@YKantRachelRead As for more detail on that, I used to be a pretty active channer and the line from slop (in regards to LLMs) and slop (goyslop) was a very thin one, often crossed.

@nagirin I feel like "discussions about marginalized people's oppression should center and elevate those marginalized people's standpoints" should be a given. like, a non-Jew shouldn't be given carte-blanche to talk over or down to you or me about antisemitism.

regardless, thank you for your perspective it seems we disagree here, and that's fine

@YKantRachelRead I reject standpoint theory. Having a unique perspective does inform views but I don't think there is anything wrong with a non-jew having strong and passionate views on antisemitism.

@nagirin @YKantRachelRead not jewish but as a member of another marginalized group: i think it is good for people outside marginalized groups to have strong and passionate views on oppression , but from my experience rejecting standpoint theory wholesale just leads to further marginalization by non-marginalized people talking over us (and often being wrong)

@ikeWren @YKantRachelRead I just more broadly reject the idea of "identity" as a solid thing one is or isn't. Standpoint theory is a part of reifying social constructs.

@nagirin @ikeWren there's a stark difference between reifying something and seeking to describe it as it currently exists

@YKantRachelRead @ikeWren and standpoint theory goes far beyond merely describing things as they are

@nagirin @ikeWren how so?

@YKantRachelRead @ikeWren Because with standpoint theory you go beyond saying that say, x gives perspectives on y, and say that x gives unique perspecitves on y, that's a leap I am not comfortable with. Nor am I comfortable with the idea that by being trans one automatically has a better perspective and *more of a say* over a cis person in regards to gender.

I don't view myself as trans as a fundamental part of my existence, I view it as a fact of my existence. And I don't think being trans should define and give me special abilities to speak on stuff just because of what I am. And I think it's dangerous to automatically highlight someone's view because they fall into a specific slot in society.

@YKantRachelRead @ikeWren the issue with standpoint theory is that is almost always devolves into moralism

@nagirin @YKantRachelRead i think that it's a necessary part of compensating for the power dynamics inherent in society as it exists now . like this would be fine if cis people and trans people already have equal footing on which to talk about gender , but the fact of the matter is that cis people already hold the power in this situation . standpoint theory , if flawed , is a tool for marginalized people to exercise rhetorical power which we otherwise would not have

@ikeWren @YKantRachelRead The issue is the selective application of what falls under lived experience. Academic study is also merely lived experience as objectivity is not real. It's not that I take issue with basing views off of experience, but rather the selective application of what "lived experience" is, as standpoint theory often invites.