4 ms·

> but I think you'll find that the net effect of your comment is still one of dismissing a black person's lived experience Pointing out that those venues were

> but I think you'll find that the net effect of your comment is still one of dismissing a black person's lived experience Pointing out that those venues were full of anti-everything hate is not dismissing a black person's experience, it's validating it, while pointing out that he's not alone.

ParetoOptimal 4y ago
> Pointing out that those venues were full of anti-everything hate is not dismissing a black person's experience, it's validating it, while pointing out that he's not alone. But it implicitly implies the negative experiences were similar in scale unless otherwise noted. It downplays the very large weight that racism adds to the negativity of that experience even if the intent is a noble one of making that person not feel alone.
- dcow 4y ago
  Or, maybe you’re the one projecting negativity for assuming that the existence of another anecdote downplays the black one in play? I give it no such credence.
  - mostly_lurks 4y ago
    "My mother died today." "Well, lots of peoples mothers died today." Do you not see how that response is problematic? How it downplays the person's experience?
    - dcow 4y ago
      Thats not an accurate reduction.
mostly_lurks 4y ago
Hate directed at black people, who have been exploited, oppressed, enslaved, killed, and more for over 400 years has a more significant and problematic impact than hate directed at other, more privileged groups. Recentering the conversation away from the black person's experience is a form of dismissal, not validation. An abuser on IRC calling a black person the n-word is objectively more harmful than an abuser on IRC calling pretty much anyone else pretty much any slur.
- naasking 4y ago
  I reject the claim that such a response is recentering the conversation, and I also reject the implicit assumption that words can be objectively harmful. For instance, a black person might be reasonably angry at hearing the n-word, until they find out the person suffers from Tourette's, at which point the "harm" vanishes. The harm clearly did not result from the word but from the framing of the situation, and the framing exists entirely within the mind and can be changed. This pattern of harm resulting from framing is seen repeatedly throughout psychology. Of course we should still push for relegating incorrect and outdated framings, like the various -isms, to the dustbin of history, but there's considerably more latitude for how to do this than naive language policing like is commonly suggested.

ParetoOptimal 4y ago

> Pointing out that those venues were full of anti-everything hate is not dismissing a black person's experience, it's validating it, while pointing out that he's not alone. But it implicitly implies the negative experiences were similar in scale unless otherwise noted. It downplays the very large weight that racism adds to the negativity of that experience even if the intent is a noble one of making that person not feel alone.

dcow 4y ago
Or, maybe you’re the one projecting negativity for assuming that the existence of another anecdote downplays the black one in play? I give it no such credence.
- mostly_lurks 4y ago
  "My mother died today." "Well, lots of peoples mothers died today." Do you not see how that response is problematic? How it downplays the person's experience?
  - dcow 4y ago
    Thats not an accurate reduction.

mostly_lurks 4y ago

Hate directed at black people, who have been exploited, oppressed, enslaved, killed, and more for over 400 years has a more significant and problematic impact than hate directed at other, more privileged groups. Recentering the conversation away from the black person's experience is a form of dismissal, not validation. An abuser on IRC calling a black person the n-word is objectively more harmful than an abuser on IRC calling pretty much anyone else pretty much any slur.

naasking 4y ago
I reject the claim that such a response is recentering the conversation, and I also reject the implicit assumption that words can be objectively harmful. For instance, a black person might be reasonably angry at hearing the n-word, until they find out the person suffers from Tourette's, at which point the "harm" vanishes. The harm clearly did not result from the word but from the framing of the situation, and the framing exists entirely within the mind and can be changed. This pattern of harm resulting from framing is seen repeatedly throughout psychology. Of course we should still push for relegating incorrect and outdated framings, like the various -isms, to the dustbin of history, but there's considerably more latitude for how to do this than naive language policing like is commonly suggested.