3 ms·

You're playing both sides here. You want to use the progressive definition of marginalized when you want something to attack, but you aren't willing to say that

You're playing both sides here. You want to use the progressive definition of marginalized when you want something to attack, but you aren't willing to say that's what marginalized actually means. Right now, by calling China marginalized, it sounds like you agree with the definition given by those examples without staking a claim on what the word really means. I'm asking you point blank: Are these groups marginalized? What are you actually trying to say? I don't think China is marginalized, the definition of "marginalized" does not include a nuclear armed, economically ascendant global nation state with the ability to make multi national corporations and interest groups apologize at a whim.

haberman 7y ago
I think the progressive definition of "marginalized" is fundamentally broken. It's used as a way of a priori deciding who is the aggressor and who is the victim in any conflict or disagreement, based solely on the identities of the people involved and their historical grievances as a group. I reject this framework. But if you accept it, I think it's hard to rebut the idea that China is oppressed, given their history over the last 200 years. I certainly believe that they feel oppressed by the west. And my observation of progressive thought is that the feeling of being oppressed combined with legitimate historical grievance is an unimpeachable claim to be a marginalized party. In particular, progressive thought seems to say that once marginalized, a group by definition continues to be marginalized until there is "equity." But China's economy still lags far behind that of the west on a per capita basis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi... . So there is certainly no "equity" here. I don't "want" to use the progressive definition of marginalized. I want to call it into question by pointing out its contradictions.
- landryraccoon 7y ago
  It seems like your actual goal is to reframe a discussion on China in order to attack progressives, something completely off topic from the original post.
  - haberman 7y ago
    It was entirely on topic to the post I replied to (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21193515 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21193515), which tried to introduce a clear distinction between progressives banning speech and China banning speech. I disagree. I wish you would be willing to acknowledge that bans on speech that offend others are legitimately problematic, instead of redirecting the conversation to me personally.
    - landryraccoon 7y ago
      The post you replied to didn't mention progressives. It drew a distinction in the abstract. You assigned the position the OP held to progressives.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]

haberman 7y ago

I think the progressive definition of "marginalized" is fundamentally broken. It's used as a way of a priori deciding who is the aggressor and who is the victim in any conflict or disagreement, based solely on the identities of the people involved and their historical grievances as a group. I reject this framework. But if you accept it, I think it's hard to rebut the idea that China is oppressed, given their history over the last 200 years. I certainly believe that they feel oppressed by the west. And my observation of progressive thought is that the feeling of being oppressed combined with legitimate historical grievance is an unimpeachable claim to be a marginalized party. In particular, progressive thought seems to say that once marginalized, a group by definition continues to be marginalized until there is "equity." But China's economy still lags far behind that of the west on a per capita basis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi... . So there is certainly no "equity" here. I don't "want" to use the progressive definition of marginalized. I want to call it into question by pointing out its contradictions.

landryraccoon 7y ago
It seems like your actual goal is to reframe a discussion on China in order to attack progressives, something completely off topic from the original post.
- haberman 7y ago
  It was entirely on topic to the post I replied to (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21193515 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21193515), which tried to introduce a clear distinction between progressives banning speech and China banning speech. I disagree. I wish you would be willing to acknowledge that bans on speech that offend others are legitimately problematic, instead of redirecting the conversation to me personally.
  - landryraccoon 7y ago
    The post you replied to didn't mention progressives. It drew a distinction in the abstract. You assigned the position the OP held to progressives.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]