3 ms·

> "my life as a member of group X should be better than that of other groups" is a political position. This isn't at all what the GP said, and that fact is one

> "my life as a member of group X should be better than that of other groups" is a political position. This isn't at all what the GP said, and that fact is one of the biggest reasons we don't like engaging in these types of conversations: a hostile stranger is liable to stop in and hammer you with a comment that reeks of contempt and disdain, and egregiously distorts what you said. "I don't want to experience all the worst experiences that anyone on the planet is having" is an extremely different statement from "my life should be better than anyone who is less fortunate than me". If you fail to distinguish these two, you're definitely just as guilty of the latter as anyone else. So, sorry, we're not here for it. And if you want to persuade us into being here for it, distortion-loaded shaming definitely isn't the way to accomplish that.

throwaway1492 5y ago
> distortion-loaded shaming definitely isn't the way to accomplish that. I'd go further and say the poster you're responding to is non charitable and down right hateful, violating at least two community guidelines: > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
wpietri 5y ago
- LAC-Tech 5y ago
  It isn't what he said, but it's apparently what he meant. Again with the mind-reading. Maybe people don't want to talk politics because so many people debate in bad faith and not only put words in peoples mouths, but thoughts into their heads.
  - civilized 5y ago
    There's a reason they call Twitter the hell-site. Arguments like this run the place. Like covering all your food in a bottle of Sriracha, political Twitter can be fun at first, but eventually you're going to get sick with diarrhea and need a break. In my case, a permanent one. I am happy to do real things for marginalized people, like vote, hire fairly, support progressive policies, etc. but exposing myself to that place does no one any good.
    - wpietri 5y ago
      Ok? Then you don't have to expose yourself to it. I'm not arguing otherwise. There are many good ways to step outside one's filter bubble. For what it's worth, though, my Twitter experience is pretty different. I follow a wide variety of people. Some of my feed is politics. A lot isn't. If you just have it show you a strict time-ranked feed and discourage it from suggesting stuff to you, you can tailor the experience quite a bit.
  - wpietri 5y ago
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- civilized 5y ago
  I just don't think anyone has to be on Twitter to learn about (for instance) bad legislation that affects marginalized people so they can oppose it. It tends to bubble up into other media sources. And nowadays, those media sources will cite the big influential tweets anyway, so it's not even like you can escape from Twitter. It seems like you're reading the original comment as saying "I feel justified in never thinking about marginalized people and systematically preventing myself from seeing anything that might prompt that thinking"... and I think that's a really big leap to make. There are ways to be informed without exposing yourself to the firehose of everyone's random opinions and feelings, which can be a complete lose-lose proposition, damaging your own mental health and relationships without helping anyone.
  - wpietri 5y ago

throwaway1492 5y ago

> distortion-loaded shaming definitely isn't the way to accomplish that. I'd go further and say the poster you're responding to is non charitable and down right hateful, violating at least two community guidelines: > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

wpietri 5y ago

LAC-Tech 5y ago
It isn't what he said, but it's apparently what he meant. Again with the mind-reading. Maybe people don't want to talk politics because so many people debate in bad faith and not only put words in peoples mouths, but thoughts into their heads.
- civilized 5y ago
  There's a reason they call Twitter the hell-site. Arguments like this run the place. Like covering all your food in a bottle of Sriracha, political Twitter can be fun at first, but eventually you're going to get sick with diarrhea and need a break. In my case, a permanent one. I am happy to do real things for marginalized people, like vote, hire fairly, support progressive policies, etc. but exposing myself to that place does no one any good.
  - wpietri 5y ago
    Ok? Then you don't have to expose yourself to it. I'm not arguing otherwise. There are many good ways to step outside one's filter bubble. For what it's worth, though, my Twitter experience is pretty different. I follow a wide variety of people. Some of my feed is politics. A lot isn't. If you just have it show you a strict time-ranked feed and discourage it from suggesting stuff to you, you can tailor the experience quite a bit.
- wpietri 5y ago
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
civilized 5y ago
I just don't think anyone has to be on Twitter to learn about (for instance) bad legislation that affects marginalized people so they can oppose it. It tends to bubble up into other media sources. And nowadays, those media sources will cite the big influential tweets anyway, so it's not even like you can escape from Twitter. It seems like you're reading the original comment as saying "I feel justified in never thinking about marginalized people and systematically preventing myself from seeing anything that might prompt that thinking"... and I think that's a really big leap to make. There are ways to be informed without exposing yourself to the firehose of everyone's random opinions and feelings, which can be a complete lose-lose proposition, damaging your own mental health and relationships without helping anyone.
- wpietri 5y ago