It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Oh, you want me to name names, J_Montalbano?
I think, if you're tempted to respond to someone's offense, check your
sex and skin colour. If the answer is white and male, you should refrain
from chiming in on what you think shouldn't be offensive.
But let's not assume in advance we've got nothing to contribute.
Max, Ray specifically said that more privileged people should not share their opinions on what shouldn't be considered offensive. Not that you should shut up entirely, just that it's not the privileged's place to make a call on what is oppressive.
Once again I say," what can I actually do now" as an individual to stop the rights of women from being trampled today?
But that doesn't mean members of other groups can't, after listening and thinking carefully, push back when they think a point of view is unreasonable. Please don't tell me it's not my 'place' to do so.
For some or all of the men in the industry to be sympathetic or accept that they are privileged is nice and all but all it does is make them look like nice guys.
The other James banned me.
Because you requested that I disable your account, and in Vanilla, banning is the only way to do so. And the ban was immediately removed when you objected.
specifically said that more privileged people should not share their opinions on what shouldn't be considered
So, if I'm privileged, I should partially shut up?
So, if I'm privileged and work for Charlie Hebdo, then I can not express
my opinion whether it is offensive or not to publish a picture of the prophet?
In other words—let's say goodbye to that good old freedom of expression.
When, for example, a black woman tells me something she experienced or read that she thinks is racist, I have no ground on which to disagree with her.
Well, I generally agree with you that it is a good rule of thumb, but there's a big assumption of reasonableness in it. So to briefly do the devil's advocate thing: does your statement hold up if a black woman tells you that she thinks it is racist that she has to stand in line at Starbucks? Isn't there a reasonable basis on which you, without presumption of privilege, might say 'That's not racism'?
We have to be able to analyse what constitutes systemic inequality, to describe it with some measure of accuracy, otherwise we can't begin to address it with systemic and structural changes.
We should be taking it up with the dicks ruining it for everyone else
When we say something clueless, call us on it.
there's a big assumption of reasonableness in it.
Yes, there is. It's giving a marginalized person the benefit of the doubt that they understand their marginalization better than you do. And if someone tells you it's racist that they have to stand in line at Starbucks, you don't need to engage. That person is likely, rightly, angry at the society they live in— the one that sees their color as their predominant trait, and forces them to do so too.