if a minority is telling us they feel oppressed, we need to listen, not dismiss it.
I'd go even further, and say that if
anyone is telling us they are oppressed,
we need to talk about it.
I don't agree that feeling oppressed is sufficient, because we cannot act on feelings alone; we must find the reasons for those feelings, and discuss what we – both at the individual level, and at the societal level – can and should do about it. You know, like adults, for conflict resolution.
But it’s callous and arrogant to wholesale dismiss the grievances, as happens here on the forums every single time a progressive social issue is raised.
I disagree. People like myself only dismiss the emotional argument and the demands for reparation, because we know from history that that does not fix anything; that we need to discuss the core reasons, honestly, to make a lasting change for the better.
For those who approach things socially/emotionally, that can
feel like dismissing the issue, but it isn't. People like me who approach things rationally/analytically find zero value in the emotional argument, and instead need to talk about the underlying core issues – because that is how we do everything: it is not a choice, it is how our brains work.
However, rather than talk about these issues, we are seeing terms being banned because of their alleged emotional subtext, mostly by people who do not themselves claim to have negative feelings, but claim that there are these 'other' people who do. And I just cannot see anything rational in that: for one, those who are genuinely hurt should speak out aloud themselves, and the proxies shut up since it is not their place to claim what others are truly feeling; for two, banning words does nothing to fix or change the core reason; and most importantly, the entire premise just continues segregation between 'those allowed' and 'those not allowed'.
Finally: I, and many others, will never accept equity or equality of outcome, because we know from history that that is tyranny and will lead to death and misery. We do strive for equality of opportunity, however. People like me dismiss any amount of emotional argument for one or the other, because we simply do not perceive things in that manner; it is like you are arguing about colors to a blind person. To come to a mutually beneficial agreement/outcome, we must talk at the level of possible action. And at that level, people like I can show from history that banning terms, or restricting words for the use of a certain segment of the populace, only leads to added conflict and strife, and helps nobody.
I believe your (Tooki's) heart is in the right place. I believe that there is a set of actions that lead to changes that would decrease the number of people who feel oppressed, but such actions are completely different than the ones argued from the social/emotional perspective. I would love to see such things discussed (in USA, police reform is one; here in the rest of the Western countries, the police kill a hell of a lot less people each year!), but the emotive claims for immediate banning silence those.
Listening without talking does nothing.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
