Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
So once again you have characterized my position and dismissed me as arrogant. No, that's not my view. If a person who has been affected by racism can leverage that experience to make a strong rational point on the issue of racism, then that may be where the value of these experiences comes in. However, their view should never be privileged over anyone else's simply because of that experience, which is precisely what happens in a ton of cases. Any argument, statement, perspective or what have you has its own merits irrespective of who is offering it. The inverse is inherently fallacious.
|
Right, but my point was in regards to you saying you don't seek out alternative voices. If someone makes an argument from one perspective, it may be right by the criteria contained in that perspective, but the perspective itself might be limiting to the larger issues at hand. Go look at something like the people who go to rallies and try to shout down "black lives matter" chants with "all lives matter." Technically they're not wrong, but they're clearly missing the point and the bigger picture.
I had a moment a few months back where I was reading a lot of articles on various issues and I realized that most of the people I would read for takes on various social issues were white men. Now either I was just extremely good at picking the "winning argument" (whatever that means) and it's just coincidence that everyone who I agree with happened to be white or, the more likely explanation, I probably have some inherent biases that are reinforced by the media I'm exposed to and the limited diversity of voices in said media. So I made a conscious effort to start looking for different sources, and surprise, surprise there were a lot of things that I hadn't considered because those particular perspectives and experiences were missing in the media I was primarily consuming.
I don't think it's possible to be completely informed on a subject, and therefore be able to judge what is the correct course of action, unless you're willing to do the legwork and educate yourself from a variety of perspectives. Even if you don't agree with the conclusions of the authors, understanding their position is pretty crucial to any sort of discourse.
Quote:
|
Sure, and they should engage in a conversation about why her views bother them if they do, and why she should alter them. This is not, as in the earlier example, Fred Phelps. There seems to be a huge desire to cast people as horrible monsters here. From that letter, this woman doesn't seem evil to me, and if there are good reasons she should alter her views, maybe she would be receptive to such. Probably somewhat less so, now, I'd wager.
|
Again, I think you need to understand it from the perspective of someone who's sick and tired of dealing with racist nonsense and the assorted apologists that come in its wake. Minorities are tired of having to explain to white people why their racism is racist, because it generally goes one of a number of ways:
a) They get mocked or racially disparaged
b) The person they accuse of something racist denies it and proclaims that acuser is just being oversensitive
c) You get the "well it wasn't intentional" speech
d) You get the "I have a lot of ____ friends" speech
e) They legitimately and sincerely apologize
Now if e) was the most common, there's probably not a huge issue, but talk to most people who have had race-related happen to them, and you usually run through a) to d) and then maybe, if you're lucky, get the apology, which more often than not comes out as the "I'm sorry if you're offended" crap.
So, yeah, the reaction is over the top, but I understand why it might be more appealing for people to just want someone who appears to hold a marginalizing sentiment to just F off as opposed to taking the time to explain
why they're misguided.