7 ms·
That's because the author seems to be firmly anchored in a coastal elite bubble. In particular this phrase: > invalidate someone's lived experience ...is part
by throw__away7391 4y ago
That's because the author seems to be firmly anchored in a coastal elite bubble. In particular this phrase:
> invalidate someone's lived experience
...is particularly cringe-inducing. These are code words. This is not how any normal human in the English speaking world has ever spoken prior to exposure to a particular brand of (most often quite expensive) education, and let's be clear--that's the whole point. People train themselves to use this language as a way to demonstrate their membership or desired membership in the current socio-economic elite. It is not really any different from learning to use the "correct" fork at a 19th century dinner party, even to the point where watered-down versions of both trickling into middle class.
So let's say now you've gone and learned these phrases and weaponized your speech in this manner, great on you right? Wrong! You've lost your voice, everything you say is now constrained without the confines of this language and carries connotations set by someone else that overshadow whatever you may wish to express, but more importantly, your speech is now a constant performance. Just as how nourishment was not the point of dinner, what's being discussed is not the point of conversation when using this language. People who talk this way occasionally slip up and deviate slightly and you can hear in their voice how much anxiety this causes them, usually some small nervous joke follows. Crippling anxiety is perhaps the defining trait of these folks, to the point that many many of them, a far higher percentage than you'd expect naturally, are on some kind of anti-anxiety drugs. This risk of saying something that puts you out of step with the tastemakers grows enormously as your investment increases, better to say nothing of substance at all while using lots and lots of this language and drop in as many of these code words as possible.
- Kaze404 4y agoWhat? That's a completely normal sentence. I don't understand what in particular triggered this rant full of strawmen.
- samhw 4y agoI think you're illustrating that person's point. I'm a liberal, with-the-times person in a liberal, with-the-times city, and I cringe at the thought of ever uttering the words "invalidate someone's lived experience". Aside from anything else, what the fuck does it even mean? I don't think it's a bad rule of writing to speak in simple, clear, plain words, not glutinous agglomerations of abstract verbiage which evoke nothing. (While we're at it, have you considered whether you might actually be a man made of straw?)
- kelseyfrog 4y ago> Aside from anything else, what the fuck does it even mean? I'm assuming this is a genuine question, so I'll answer with my genuine understanding. Invalidating someone's lived experience is the process by which someone more or less says, "that didn't happen to you", or "your interpretation of events that happened to you is wrong." Before we start to find edge cases like "they clearly left the door unlocked and believed it to be locked," no that's not what invalidating lived experiences pertains to. Invalidating lived experience pertains to social knowledge and interpretations usually of harmful events. Or in other words, overwriting someone's framing of the harmful events that happened to them. Broad categories include, "no, that wasn't racism/sexism/bigotry that you experienced", or "no that really wasn't abusive." You might think of it as a certain kind of gaslighting. Could there be a better name for it? Maybe? Signifiers are often detached from what they signify- it doesn't matter much to me at this point that this is the case. Let me be clear. I'm not here to discuss that this is or isn't a problem in discourse. Moving from, obtuse wording to, not-actually-a-problem is a kettle logic I don't wish to engage in.
- slowmovintarget 4y agoThat phrase is often used to move goalposts when someone is using an anecdote to justify actions they've taken, or policy they're advocating. This can include leveling accusations at other people. It is a linguistic tactic that attempts to bypass debate through appeal to emotion. "You can't tell me I don't feel this way!" Correct, you feel that way, but your feelings don't magically turn assertions into fact. The objection of "invalidating lived experience" is the notion that one's feeling are facts when they are not. They are subjective impressions unsuitable as the sole grounds for action.
- kelseyfrog 4y agoReally good example. Thank you. This is precisely the type of thinking that goes into invalidating lived experience. The mechanism behind invalidating lived experience is fundamentally a reality construction mechanism. It's goal is to construct a reality, namely by the person doing the invalidating. The reality being constructed is absent bigotry and abuse as a way of avoiding the task of confronting them directly. In short it says, "My reality is objectively true and yours is not" when the person doing the constructing hasn't the same personal encounters as the person being invalidated.
- rfrey 4y agoI have used this exact phrase multiple times, but your parent's "rant full of strawmen" did make me reflect on it. - How is "lived experience" different than "experience"? - How can an experience be "invalidated"? What does that mean? Disrespected, discounted, something else?
- Kaze404 4y agoI think there are great discussions to be had on the subject of listening to people's experiences without necessarily ignoring factual evidence that contradicts it. My problem is specifically with that person writing two paragraphs of literal fantasy over someone expressing themselves in a way that feels foreign to them, interestingly enough contradicting the very point they're trying to make by doing so. Just very weird, in a way I haven't seen here before.
- amalcon 4y agoI mostly disagree with grandparent's diagnosis of the issue, but it really doesn't seem like a normal phrase to me. I live in one of these elite coastal cities, work with mostly Ph.D's, and my primary social circles have an unusual proportion (even for where I am) of educated folks as well. The phrase reads to me much like something that came out of Google Translate -- I know what it's trying to say, but it does not seem like the way a human would say it.
- slowmovintarget 4y agoAye. Policy should be based on data. In that world, lived experience has a proper word to describe it: anecdotes. The reason there's an attempt to change the language around anecdotes is that "lived experience" is intended to be beyond argument as evidence.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- alexjurkiewicz 4y ago> the author seems to be firmly anchored in a coastal elite bubble > These are code words Jargon for me, code words for thee.