3 ms·

>arguments based on identity aren't ad-hominem Well here's the problem. Arguments that discredit another perspective based on the identity of who is making it

by stult 9y ago

>arguments based on identity aren't ad-hominem Well here's the problem. Arguments that discredit another perspective based on the identity of who is making it are ad hominem. Arguments about the discursive process itself that address representation of various identities aren't. For example, if you tell me that privilege prevents minority voices from contributing to a national dialogue on poverty alleviation, I would agree. But that's not how people use identity in most online or casual arguments. They use identity to directly discredit and silence their opponents. Telling others to shut up isn't a good faith starting point for a productive conversation. That approach is based on an unrealistic, zero sum interpretation of how people interact, where it's only possible for one person to speak on any given subject. Getting more black people involved in a conversation on race doesn't mean silencing all the white people. Yet that's where these conversations often progress to. It's extraordinarily unpleasant to experience and completely useless for fostering dialogue.

nkoren 9y ago
This, absolutely. I actually care passionately about racial, gender, orientation, and economic equality. I've been an activist for these causes for nearly my whole life. I want more people to care about these issues and speak up about them. However the mainstream manifestation of intersectional activism is opposed to this, apparently predicated on the notion that speech is a zero-sum game, and that if you're part of any kind of majority-group, you can't be on our side. This both morally and strategically wrong: morally because it is founded on a notion of race/gender/culture/identity essentialism that is the entire fucking thing I've spent my life fighting against, and strategically because the only winning condition is one where you get the majority on your side -- and telling them how much they need to shut up will never, ever do that.
gizmo 9y ago
Of course "shut up" is not a good starting point for a conversation. The point is that people can't talk and listen at the same time. When people are ignorant about a subject because they don't have the relevant personal experience they don't have anything to contribute to the conversation so they should just listen. That's the only way to have the kind of productive dialogue you claim to want. Otherwise discussions on these topics will never go beyond the 101 level. Your claim that white people are being silenced on race is absurd. In all mediums, whether it's newspapers, blogs, TV, or anywhere else, you see white people pontificating on race. It's people of color whose opinions are being silenced. Besides, a real discussion on race needs to be uncomfortable for white people. A pleasant conversation about race with white people doesn't result in minds being changed. Coming to terms with the way society oppresses people of color and favors white people is inherently unpleasant.
- stult 9y ago
  >When people are ignorant about a subject because they don't have the relevant personal experience they don't have anything to contribute to the conversation so they should just listen Well this is exactly the problem. You're assuming from the get go that white people have nothing to contribute to the conversation. >Your claim that white people are being silenced on race is absurd I have never made any such claim. I argued that people frequently use identity as a tool to silence opponents. That used to be a common tactic for suppressing minority views. "Oh, he's just a dumb negro, what does he know," and similar statements used to be socially acceptable ways of dismissing someone's perspective purely on the basis of their racial identity. Nowadays that more often takes the form of what you just did: assuming that white people have nothing relevant to contribute, where the reverse argument has become socially unacceptable. That does not mean white people are universally silenced, nor on the other hand does it mean that we as a society are devoting enough time to listening to minorities. The whole point of this argument is that you cannot discredit any individual person's argument on the basis of what proportion of our national discourse is devoted to people who share that person's identity. The argument and the arguer must be separated where the arguer is acting in good faith. A problem with the mix of views available does not detract from the individual truth or validity of any one person's arguments. >Besides, a real discussion on race needs to be uncomfortable for white people. A pleasant conversation about race with white people doesn't result in minds being changed. I don't think that approach convinces anyone. You don't win political arguments by alienating people. That sort of verbal aggression just provokes a backlash. Movements make progress by making people feel good about themselves. White people marched with MLK because he made them feel like they were part of a grand moral crusade. Which they were. The gay rights movement has had similar success by proactively recruiting and including allies. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Ultimately this is the fundamental flaw in your thinking: >The point is that people can't talk and listen at the same time. That's true in a one on one conversation, not a national discourse. The consensus that governs a democratic society is the product of a million simultaneous and contradictory voices clamoring in a thousand separate media. Me writing this post doesn't stop a black person from replying. My speech doesn't detract from theirs. It's not a zero sum game.
  - 9y ago

by stult 9y ago

nkoren 9y ago

This, absolutely. I actually care passionately about racial, gender, orientation, and economic equality. I've been an activist for these causes for nearly my whole life. I want more people to care about these issues and speak up about them. However the mainstream manifestation of intersectional activism is opposed to this, apparently predicated on the notion that speech is a zero-sum game, and that if you're part of any kind of majority-group, you can't be on our side. This both morally and strategically wrong: morally because it is founded on a notion of race/gender/culture/identity essentialism that is the entire fucking thing I've spent my life fighting against, and strategically because the only winning condition is one where you get the majority on your side -- and telling them how much they need to shut up will never, ever do that.

gizmo 9y ago

Of course "shut up" is not a good starting point for a conversation. The point is that people can't talk and listen at the same time. When people are ignorant about a subject because they don't have the relevant personal experience they don't have anything to contribute to the conversation so they should just listen. That's the only way to have the kind of productive dialogue you claim to want. Otherwise discussions on these topics will never go beyond the 101 level. Your claim that white people are being silenced on race is absurd. In all mediums, whether it's newspapers, blogs, TV, or anywhere else, you see white people pontificating on race. It's people of color whose opinions are being silenced. Besides, a real discussion on race needs to be uncomfortable for white people. A pleasant conversation about race with white people doesn't result in minds being changed. Coming to terms with the way society oppresses people of color and favors white people is inherently unpleasant.

stult 9y ago
>When people are ignorant about a subject because they don't have the relevant personal experience they don't have anything to contribute to the conversation so they should just listen Well this is exactly the problem. You're assuming from the get go that white people have nothing to contribute to the conversation. >Your claim that white people are being silenced on race is absurd I have never made any such claim. I argued that people frequently use identity as a tool to silence opponents. That used to be a common tactic for suppressing minority views. "Oh, he's just a dumb negro, what does he know," and similar statements used to be socially acceptable ways of dismissing someone's perspective purely on the basis of their racial identity. Nowadays that more often takes the form of what you just did: assuming that white people have nothing relevant to contribute, where the reverse argument has become socially unacceptable. That does not mean white people are universally silenced, nor on the other hand does it mean that we as a society are devoting enough time to listening to minorities. The whole point of this argument is that you cannot discredit any individual person's argument on the basis of what proportion of our national discourse is devoted to people who share that person's identity. The argument and the arguer must be separated where the arguer is acting in good faith. A problem with the mix of views available does not detract from the individual truth or validity of any one person's arguments. >Besides, a real discussion on race needs to be uncomfortable for white people. A pleasant conversation about race with white people doesn't result in minds being changed. I don't think that approach convinces anyone. You don't win political arguments by alienating people. That sort of verbal aggression just provokes a backlash. Movements make progress by making people feel good about themselves. White people marched with MLK because he made them feel like they were part of a grand moral crusade. Which they were. The gay rights movement has had similar success by proactively recruiting and including allies. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Ultimately this is the fundamental flaw in your thinking: >The point is that people can't talk and listen at the same time. That's true in a one on one conversation, not a national discourse. The consensus that governs a democratic society is the product of a million simultaneous and contradictory voices clamoring in a thousand separate media. Me writing this post doesn't stop a black person from replying. My speech doesn't detract from theirs. It's not a zero sum game.
- 9y ago