3 ms·
The downvotes you're getting here (not from me, mind you) are illustrating the author's point very well. Intentionally or not, you're using so many "contentious
by Clewza313 6y ago
The downvotes you're getting here (not from me, mind you) are illustrating the author's point very well. Intentionally or not, you're using so many "contentious terms" (privileged, marginalised group, etc) that a lot of people are tuning out and ignoring what you're actually trying to convey.
Stripped of the baggage, I think you're trying to say that it's hard for minorities to avoid using contentious terms for issues that affect them, and that they shouldn't have do that extra work just to avoid "putting people off-side"? While I sympathize, I also think that's a false dichotomy: if you want to be heard, you need to phrase yourself in a way that others will understand, and that's true for everybody. And if you don't want to be heard, well, then you're just (contentious term trigger warning) virtue signalling to others on "your" side.
- sebastialonso 6y agoWhat I think grandparent comment should think is: is it more important to convey my idea or to show that I'm part of a group? Both do well for different contexts. Probably choosing one for every context is a terrible idea. As that saying goes: "if wearing a tie or not is more important than to pitch your idea, then your idea wasn't that important to begin with" edit: parent -> grandparent
- danaris 6y agoI think part of the problem here is that, for some groups of people, they can use "the right words" all they want, but their very existence is offensive to other groups of people, who want them either dead or to pretend they're "normal" (by certain standards). Of course, for many of these groups, even just using "the right words" to try to talk to the people who want to take away their right to exist means using words that denigrate and dehumanize them.