> There’s this thing with marginalized communities where people outside of the communities “just want to have a discussion” but the stakes of that conversation

> There’s this thing with marginalized communities where people outside of the communities “just want to have a discussion” but the stakes of that conversation are way too high for marginalized people. Presumably the "high stakes" are that they might fall out with the majority population, right? In that case why not do all you can to engage productively with them? There was a time when civil rights activists wished for good faith participation. > The best thing to do in situations like this is to let the marginalized people figure out what they need and then quietly listen to their conclusions. There are a couple of problems here. The first is that "their conclusions" are often the conclusions of certain activists and not the marginalized people in question (e.g., "defund the police"). I find this to be the most repulsive kind of rhetoric, because it exploits marginalized groups to the harm of everyone else and to the exclusive benefit of the activist and their ideological comrades. The second is that it dehumanizes everyone else: others are to simply keep quiet and listen to the marginalized group's needs; to acquiesce. We are all (aspirationally, at least) equal participants in a free society, and we need to find something that works for all of us. Debate is how we do that, even if the topic hits closer to home for some than others.