3 ms·

> According to the sociopolitical left, everybody should have an equal voice There are well-documented cases when that's patently not true. For example, when "

> According to the sociopolitical left, everybody should have an equal voice There are well-documented cases when that's patently not true. For example, when "those whose voices are louder", to go with your description, voice an opinion that no-one is stopping others to be as loud as they wish, they are told that their opinion does not count, because they have privilege, and that they should keep quiet and learn. And yes, they may be accused of misogyny (as well as other evils) in the process.

mcv 7y ago
I'm saying "should", not "does". Obviously there are inequalities, and there will always be, for a variety of reasons. The goal is to reduce those differences and keep them from getting out of control. Saying someone's opinion does not count is generally unproductive and needlessly hostile. The only cases where that might be defensible, is if the opinion that's under attack is itself attacking other opinions. For example: if someone claims that women's opinions don't count, I can see how you could argue that such a clearly bigoted opinion is not worthy of attention: it's arguing for the exact situation we should be getting away from. Another case might be where an opinion is obviously badly informed; sometimes you see people voicing weird opinions based on wrong assumptions about other people they know nothing about, and refuse any correction on those wrong assumptions. (In politics, those misinformed opinions are often still the loudest, though. See the abortion debate for some bizarre examples.) In those cases, shutting up and learning may indeed be the best idea. But in most cases, all opinions deserve to be heard, and nobody should be excluded from the debate for who or what they are. Of course that also means they shouldn't exclude others for who they are.

3 ms·

> According to the sociopolitical left, everybody should have an equal voice There are well-documented cases when that's patently not true. For example, when "

by azangru 7y ago

mcv 7y ago
I'm saying "should", not "does". Obviously there are inequalities, and there will always be, for a variety of reasons. The goal is to reduce those differences and keep them from getting out of control. Saying someone's opinion does not count is generally unproductive and needlessly hostile. The only cases where that might be defensible, is if the opinion that's under attack is itself attacking other opinions. For example: if someone claims that women's opinions don't count, I can see how you could argue that such a clearly bigoted opinion is not worthy of attention: it's arguing for the exact situation we should be getting away from. Another case might be where an opinion is obviously badly informed; sometimes you see people voicing weird opinions based on wrong assumptions about other people they know nothing about, and refuse any correction on those wrong assumptions. (In politics, those misinformed opinions are often still the loudest, though. See the abortion debate for some bizarre examples.) In those cases, shutting up and learning may indeed be the best idea. But in most cases, all opinions deserve to be heard, and nobody should be excluded from the debate for who or what they are. Of course that also means they shouldn't exclude others for who they are.