4 ms·

When you form a student-led committee on anti-bullying but mysteriously exclude all the victims, the bullied kids will beg and plead you to reconsider and liste

When you form a student-led committee on anti-bullying but mysteriously exclude all the victims, the bullied kids will beg and plead you to reconsider and listen to their voices instead. Not because everyone else's opinions are invalid, but because they are the ones who can speak the clearest about issues that others are blind to. I'm playing along with your analogy here, but I actually think it's a terribly weak analogy. Racial discrimination is often so ingrained in the culture that its perpetrators aren't always hulking bullies menacingly taking lunch money from people. They are more dangerous because they often see themselves as kind, empathetic and intelligent - often believing that they can detect and solve deeply complex, emotion-rooted problems such as racial discrimination simply by thinking about it for a bit when it's convenient for them. They can't fathom that the experience of the discriminated may be so vastly different than their imagination permits, simply because they haven't experienced it firsthand. Too many of us have been silenced and told to shut up both explicitly and implicitly. When it comes to racial discrimination, we will not go unheard. In this instance, in this matter, our voices do weigh much more than yours and that's simply the fact you'll have to live with.

cutemonster 5y ago
> I'm playing along with your analogy here No, I think not. Look here: > When you form a student-led committee on anti-bullying but mysteriously exclude all the victims That's, what's the right word, changing the analogy into madness. I said like this: "Not only group X can have good ideas about something" and you seem to believe that that means: "X must be silenced" -- that's weird, to say the least. I never said that, and I don't think that, and I feel surprised, maybe a little bit ill, that you somehow misinterpreted what I wrote, that much. > They are more dangerous because they often see themselves as kind, empathetic and intelligent - often believing that they can detect and solve deeply complex, emotion-rooted problems such as racial discrimination simply by thinking about it I suppose there are such people. > have been silenced and told to shut up I feel sad for the cases when that's happened to you and others > our voices do weigh much more than yours That's odd, you start writing "our" and "yours" as if you now believe that I'm in some antagonist group, just because I said "not only X can have good ideas". I'm happy that my friends who look different than me, different skin color for example, don't think like that. We think about each other as "we" together, not as "us" and "them". I think it's good to end the conversation here. In any case I'm probably not replying any further. And if you did reply to this, I think that that reply would misinterpret something I wrote, but I wouldn't reply and point out what that misunderstanding was about.
- educaysean 5y ago
  As long as you aren't trying to refute the fact that historically silenced people are the de facto authority on being "historically silenced", we're on the same page. And for the sake of clarity - Yes, anyone can and will conjure up great ideas and solutions. No, I'm not calling for such an ideas to be discarded just because the source is "wrong". For your convenience, let me paste my original comment that you had a beef with: > Your opinion is valid regardless of your privilege. When it comes to discussing specific experiences that minorities face, however, you should defer to the experts in the area who have lived their entire lives being in the seat of discrimination. Hope that made sense. I thought it was clearly implied that the voice of the discriminated be priotitized over others 'in the events of clashing opinions'. If that wasn't the case, then I apologize for my weak writing. English is obviously not my first language. Lastly, when you engage in a discussion with a minority person in matters regards to treatment of minority groups, do not be surprised that terms like "we" "us" and "your" get thrown around. It's simply how conversations naturally flow around such topics, and not indicative of the speaker's bias towards identity politics. You might be shocked to find that my close friends of diverse backgrounds don't see me as the strawman you described. And that's not even mentioning my wife and her family. Have a good week mate!
  - cutemonster 5y ago
    > As long as you aren't trying to refute the fact that historically silenced people are the de facto authority on being "historically silenced", we're on the same page Ok, I definitely agree with you about that > No, I'm not calling for such an ideas to be discarded just because the source is "wrong". Oh ok. I first got the impression that you did, thanks for replying and explaining About the quote: > When it comes to discussing specific experiences that minorities face, I read that as having ideas about what to do about it, whilst you seem to have referred to what has happened to minority people in the past. I'm thinking that "discussing" here is a bit ambiguous and I'm sorry that I didn't realize I had interpreted it differently from what you meant > English is obviously not my first language. Not my first either :-) (btw I'm a bit surprised, I was guessing that you had grown up in the US in a primarily English speaking part of the country) > You might be shocked to find that my close friends of diverse backgrounds don't see me as the strawman you described. I'd think we would be good friends if we met Have a good week & summer you too

cutemonster 5y ago

> I'm playing along with your analogy here No, I think not. Look here: > When you form a student-led committee on anti-bullying but mysteriously exclude all the victims That's, what's the right word, changing the analogy into madness. I said like this: "Not only group X can have good ideas about something" and you seem to believe that that means: "X must be silenced" -- that's weird, to say the least. I never said that, and I don't think that, and I feel surprised, maybe a little bit ill, that you somehow misinterpreted what I wrote, that much. > They are more dangerous because they often see themselves as kind, empathetic and intelligent - often believing that they can detect and solve deeply complex, emotion-rooted problems such as racial discrimination simply by thinking about it I suppose there are such people. > have been silenced and told to shut up I feel sad for the cases when that's happened to you and others > our voices do weigh much more than yours That's odd, you start writing "our" and "yours" as if you now believe that I'm in some antagonist group, just because I said "not only X can have good ideas". I'm happy that my friends who look different than me, different skin color for example, don't think like that. We think about each other as "we" together, not as "us" and "them". I think it's good to end the conversation here. In any case I'm probably not replying any further. And if you did reply to this, I think that that reply would misinterpret something I wrote, but I wouldn't reply and point out what that misunderstanding was about.

educaysean 5y ago
As long as you aren't trying to refute the fact that historically silenced people are the de facto authority on being "historically silenced", we're on the same page. And for the sake of clarity - Yes, anyone can and will conjure up great ideas and solutions. No, I'm not calling for such an ideas to be discarded just because the source is "wrong". For your convenience, let me paste my original comment that you had a beef with: > Your opinion is valid regardless of your privilege. When it comes to discussing specific experiences that minorities face, however, you should defer to the experts in the area who have lived their entire lives being in the seat of discrimination. Hope that made sense. I thought it was clearly implied that the voice of the discriminated be priotitized over others 'in the events of clashing opinions'. If that wasn't the case, then I apologize for my weak writing. English is obviously not my first language. Lastly, when you engage in a discussion with a minority person in matters regards to treatment of minority groups, do not be surprised that terms like "we" "us" and "your" get thrown around. It's simply how conversations naturally flow around such topics, and not indicative of the speaker's bias towards identity politics. You might be shocked to find that my close friends of diverse backgrounds don't see me as the strawman you described. And that's not even mentioning my wife and her family. Have a good week mate!
- cutemonster 5y ago
  > As long as you aren't trying to refute the fact that historically silenced people are the de facto authority on being "historically silenced", we're on the same page Ok, I definitely agree with you about that > No, I'm not calling for such an ideas to be discarded just because the source is "wrong". Oh ok. I first got the impression that you did, thanks for replying and explaining About the quote: > When it comes to discussing specific experiences that minorities face, I read that as having ideas about what to do about it, whilst you seem to have referred to what has happened to minority people in the past. I'm thinking that "discussing" here is a bit ambiguous and I'm sorry that I didn't realize I had interpreted it differently from what you meant > English is obviously not my first language. Not my first either :-) (btw I'm a bit surprised, I was guessing that you had grown up in the US in a primarily English speaking part of the country) > You might be shocked to find that my close friends of diverse backgrounds don't see me as the strawman you described. I'd think we would be good friends if we met Have a good week & summer you too