3 ms·

Maybe it is just early in the morning for me, but I am not confident that I understand why Paul switched the roles in the concluding statement of the essay. >

Maybe it is just early in the morning for me, but I am not confident that I understand why Paul switched the roles in the concluding statement of the essay. > Similarly, if someone says they can think of things that are true but that cannot be said, it's only polite to take them at their word, even if you can't think of any yourself. That statement suggests to me that the responsibility of being polite should fall on those in the orthodox privileged demographic when challenged by those claiming that there are truths that cannot be safely spoken. It seems flipped around from the rolls expressed in the body of the essay, and that has me confused. How would they know to be polite? How is this actually a solution?

ExitPlatosCave 3y ago
Possibly... Take them at their word that they can they really believe what they are saying is true. Thus being polite versus thinking they are deliberately deceiving you. But not that you have to also accept what they say as correct or true for yourself.
- dustfinger 3y ago
  I understand that part of the essay. However; the essay argues that the orthodox privileged group is the one that cannot see that there are truths that cannot be safely expressed, but concludes that this same group should be polite to those that believe such truths exist. If my understanding is correct, how could they know to be polite to those outside of their demographic. For that, they would need to be sympathetic, or at the very least empathetic. I guess my big problem with the concluding statement is that it places the responsibility of resolving the impasse on the demographic that is apparently incapable of imagining the world from the others perspective. That seems futile in the absence of empathy. Whose responsibility is it then, to establish a sense of empathy amongst the majority of the orthodox privileged group (empathy would be needed in the other group as well of course)? Consider also that an obligation to be polite and silence ones voice from engaging in meaningful discourse, may very well be what ultimately leads to an orthodox privileged group in the first place, making the proposed solution a paradox.
  - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
    You can ask them to be polite. They're not going to know that there's anything to be polite about on their own.
jimbokun 3y ago
Agreed. That seemed a non-sequitur to me, too.
cubefox 3y ago
> How would they know to be polite? From being told: "It would be polite if you assumed that there are potentially true opinions that cannot be safely expressed in public."

ExitPlatosCave 3y ago

Possibly... Take them at their word that they can they really believe what they are saying is true. Thus being polite versus thinking they are deliberately deceiving you. But not that you have to also accept what they say as correct or true for yourself.

dustfinger 3y ago
I understand that part of the essay. However; the essay argues that the orthodox privileged group is the one that cannot see that there are truths that cannot be safely expressed, but concludes that this same group should be polite to those that believe such truths exist. If my understanding is correct, how could they know to be polite to those outside of their demographic. For that, they would need to be sympathetic, or at the very least empathetic. I guess my big problem with the concluding statement is that it places the responsibility of resolving the impasse on the demographic that is apparently incapable of imagining the world from the others perspective. That seems futile in the absence of empathy. Whose responsibility is it then, to establish a sense of empathy amongst the majority of the orthodox privileged group (empathy would be needed in the other group as well of course)? Consider also that an obligation to be polite and silence ones voice from engaging in meaningful discourse, may very well be what ultimately leads to an orthodox privileged group in the first place, making the proposed solution a paradox.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  You can ask them to be polite. They're not going to know that there's anything to be polite about on their own.

jimbokun 3y ago

Agreed. That seemed a non-sequitur to me, too.

cubefox 3y ago

> How would they know to be polite? From being told: "It would be polite if you assumed that there are potentially true opinions that cannot be safely expressed in public."