3 ms·
>I think it is a legitimate point despite its unsavory origins. It's actually not. It's dismissive of the lived realities of people marginalized by unchosen st
by omegaworks 8y ago
>I think it is a legitimate point despite its unsavory origins.
It's actually not. It's dismissive of the lived realities of people marginalized by unchosen structural norms. You can deny that identity has tangible effects, but that doesn't make what you say true. It only serves to demonstrate your blindspot. It is one that is commonly shared by people whose identity is considered the default.
Some people that are loudly ignorant, especially those that defend their ignorance vigorously, face consequences in professional settings. As they should. It's a waste of everyone's time and effort.
- haberman 8y ago> Some people that are loudly ignorant, especially those that defend their ignorance vigorously, face consequences in professional settings. Sort of like Galileo did? Sometimes the societal norms of what is considered "ignorant" are wrong. If you haven't come across it, I would highly recommend the book Galileo's Middle Finger. It was written by a lefty who started her career as an activist fighting for the humane treatment of intersex people (a marginalized group). But later in her career she discovered lots of people who were accused of being ignorant had actually been unfairly smeared by people whose accusations didn't stand up to scrutiny.
- omegaworks 8y ago> Sort of like Galileo did? That you're comparing positions that advocate genocide to the thoughts of Galileo just shows your complete lack of genuine desire to understand.
- haberman 8y agoWho said anything about genocide? The only specific position I have mentioned on this thread is dissenting from a corporate diversity policy. Do you have a genuine desire to understand what I am saying? If so, why would you suppose I am talking about positions that advocate genocide?