3 ms·

Or to be more clear, it's a phrase which means that if a person feels victimized, their anecdotal personal account supersedes any empirical evidence. It's esse

Or to be more clear, it's a phrase which means that if a person feels victimized, their anecdotal personal account supersedes any empirical evidence. It's essentially a new form of religious anti-intellectualism, but without identifying itself as such. In the past, you might not have been allowed to say "no, God didn't appear to you in a vision" or "no, this event wasn't evidence of divine intervention". Today you're allowed to question someone's anecdote about religious experience, but you're not allowed to question their experience of victimization under a certain set of classes. History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes.

kelseyfrog 4y ago
It's very simple. I'm not sure why we're talking about visions. If someone says, "Such and such happened to me. I think it was abuse," consider stopping to think two times before responding with "No, that didn't happen." It's the very same thing already in the HN guidelines in the form of "Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine." I'm not sure why we're constructing parallels between religious interventions other than to ridicule having curious conversations instead of deciding for other people.