So what's this whole Race and Gender thing all about....

[Chelagoras The Boulder]

SO i had a long discussion with a feminist friend of mine, where she explained something to me that i'd only ever had yelled at me incoherently: SJW discussion etiquette. The rule, i have been told is that the group should moderate who gets to contribute the most to any discussion about a social justice issue by who is most or least privileged in a given discussion group. The people who are the most privileged are assumed to have the least to contribute to the discussion and are encouraged to sit back and take in the experiences of those who are. So, in a discussion of abortion , for example, a woman would be assumed to have more to say on the subject than a man, or an immigrant would be assumed to have more to say than non-immigrants in a debate on immigration policy. I get the sentiment behind this, allowing for marginalized groups to share their experiences more readily. But then i remember that humans are basically chimps, and so I see this resulting in hierarchy and a game of oneupsmanship and social status seeking within the group which leads to resentment and table-flipping as people get frustrated with the rules of who can speak about what and when. What do you guys think? Am i missing something here?

[P3nT4gR4m]

But then i remember that humans are basically chimps, and so I see this resulting in hierarchy and a game of oneupsmanship and social status seeking within the group which leads to resentment and table-flipping as people get frustrated with the rules of who can speak about what and when. What do you guys think? Am i missing something here?

That's my take. Whilst the reason may seem logical on the surface, it's actually bullshit masquerading as an excuse to crowbar in some monkey status.

[President Television]

But then i remember that humans are basically chimps, and so I see this resulting in hierarchy and a game of oneupsmanship and social status seeking within the group which leads to resentment and table-flipping as people get frustrated with the rules of who can speak about what and when. What do you guys think? Am i missing something here?

That's my take. Whilst the reason may seem logical on the surface, it's actually bullshit masquerading as an excuse to crowbar in some monkey status.

Yeah, I've seen it get taken to some pretty bullshit extremes. I've been told to my face before that I don't have the right to think critically about certain subjects, like colourism because I'm not black, or otherkin because I'm not trans(I didn't think those were the same thing, but the more you know, I guess). I asked for clarification a few times, and yes, it turns out that I didn't mishear her and she meant exactly what she said. I couldn't wrap my head around it.

I can understand that I'm probably less informed on those subjects than someone who has to deal with them in their daily life, and I should therefore probably defer to them instead of jumping in half-cocked and acting on assumptions, but I was also told that I shouldn't ask people any questions, and that instead I should show up to discussions having read the correct blogs ahead of time and decided on an opinion someone else had arrived on. This too is no exaggeration.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

But then i remember that humans are basically chimps, and so I see this resulting in hierarchy and a game of oneupsmanship and social status seeking within the group which leads to resentment and table-flipping as people get frustrated with the rules of who can speak about what and when. What do you guys think? Am i missing something here?

That's my take. Whilst the reason may seem logical on the surface, it's actually bullshit masquerading as an excuse to crowbar in some monkey status.

Or it's both logical and necessary and inevitably leads to idiot monkey status things.

[P3nT4gR4m]

But then i remember that humans are basically chimps, and so I see this resulting in hierarchy and a game of oneupsmanship and social status seeking within the group which leads to resentment and table-flipping as people get frustrated with the rules of who can speak about what and when. What do you guys think? Am i missing something here?

That's my take. Whilst the reason may seem logical on the surface, it's actually bullshit masquerading as an excuse to crowbar in some monkey status.

Or it's both logical and necessary and inevitably leads to idiot monkey status things.

Eliminating a mind from a discussion is neither logical or necessary. It's retarded primate posturing all the way down.

[LMNO]

If the discussion is on a subject where the less privileged has more direct experience, I agree whole-heartedly, because there's more direct knowledge there.  Much in the same way that I would allow a professor of particle physics to lead a conversation about quarks, but I would let a neurobiologist lead a conversation about dendrites.  Let the people who know, talk.


However,

I was also told that I shouldn't ask people any questions, and that instead I should show up to discussions having read the correct blogs ahead of time and decided on an opinion someone else had arrived on. This too is no exaggeration.

That's not a discussion.  That's social signaling, and fart-huffing.

[President Television]

If the discussion is on a subject where the less privileged has more direct experience, I agree whole-heartedly, because there's more direct knowledge there.  Much in the same way that I would allow a professor of particle physics to lead a conversation about quarks, but I would let a neurobiologist lead a conversation about dendrites.  Let the people who know, talk.


However,

I was also told that I shouldn't ask people any questions, and that instead I should show up to discussions having read the correct blogs ahead of time and decided on an opinion someone else had arrived on. This too is no exaggeration.

That's not a discussion.  That's social signaling, and fart-huffing.

Yeah, and I agree with your position there. But I wasn't paraphrasing when I said I was told I didn't have the right to think critically. When you talk to said professor, you're allowed to make guesses and cobble together clumsy analogies, and the professor will tell you which things you're right about and which you're wrong about, and in which sense, rather than telling you it was forbidden to do so in the first place. A professor of particle physics will try to stimulate your thought process. This particular individual(though not necessarily representative of anyone else) openly stated her intention to stifle it. It's depressing as hell.

[LMNO]

That would seem to be a group to walk away from.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

But then i remember that humans are basically chimps, and so I see this resulting in hierarchy and a game of oneupsmanship and social status seeking within the group which leads to resentment and table-flipping as people get frustrated with the rules of who can speak about what and when. What do you guys think? Am i missing something here?

That's my take. Whilst the reason may seem logical on the surface, it's actually bullshit masquerading as an excuse to crowbar in some monkey status.

Or it's both logical and necessary and inevitably leads to idiot monkey status things.

Bingo.

The whole reason that approach has come about is because the most privileged have a tendency to dominate the conversation with their opinions.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

But then i remember that humans are basically chimps, and so I see this resulting in hierarchy and a game of oneupsmanship and social status seeking within the group which leads to resentment and table-flipping as people get frustrated with the rules of who can speak about what and when. What do you guys think? Am i missing something here?

That's my take. Whilst the reason may seem logical on the surface, it's actually bullshit masquerading as an excuse to crowbar in some monkey status.

Or it's both logical and necessary and inevitably leads to idiot monkey status things.

Eliminating a mind from a discussion is neither logical or necessary. It's retarded primate posturing all the way down.

This is a prime example of what I mean.

You fail to see the reason those who are most affected by a situation should be given the space to lead the discussion about it, so you dismiss it as "retarded primate posturing".

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

If the discussion is on a subject where the less privileged has more direct experience, I agree whole-heartedly, because there's more direct knowledge there.  Much in the same way that I would allow a professor of particle physics to lead a conversation about quarks, but I would let a neurobiologist lead a conversation about dendrites.  Let the people who know, talk.


However,

I was also told that I shouldn't ask people any questions, and that instead I should show up to discussions having read the correct blogs ahead of time and decided on an opinion someone else had arrived on. This too is no exaggeration.

That's not a discussion.  That's social signaling, and fart-huffing.

Yeah, and I agree with your position there. But I wasn't paraphrasing when I said I was told I didn't have the right to think critically. When you talk to said professor, you're allowed to make guesses and cobble together clumsy analogies, and the professor will tell you which things you're right about and which you're wrong about, and in which sense, rather than telling you it was forbidden to do so in the first place. A professor of particle physics will try to stimulate your thought process. This particular individual(though not necessarily representative of anyone else) openly stated her intention to stifle it. It's depressing as hell.

The answer is that she is a control-freaky jerk. The world is full of them.

[Chelagoras The Boulder]

well, also does one make allowances for expertise? Like, how much would say a white professor of African Studies with a history of social activism get to say on the topic of black civil rights, compared to say a black teenager who has much day to day experience with racism but has no idea how to lead a social movement? There seems to be an assumption that based on ones race or gender that the people in the group already know what the speaker is going to contribute to the group and have already decided that it is inherently of less value than something another person might say.

[Doktor Howl]

I think I'm gonna hand the expertise on the subject of race over to the people with the most day-to-day experience with it.

Would you prefer to have a high rise building's tabs (the metal hangers that are used to hold the concrete slabs in place) inspected by a welder with 20 years experience, or an engineering professor with zero time in the field?

[Doktor Howl]

This particular individual(though not necessarily representative of anyone else) openly stated her intention to stifle it. It's depressing as hell.

What you have there is tumblr, Sanders groupies, and my mom.

[LMNO]

I think I'm gonna hand the expertise on the subject of race over to the people with the most day-to-day experience with it.

Would you prefer to have a high rise building's tabs (the metal hangers that are used to hold the concrete slabs in place) inspected by a welder with 20 years experience, or an engineering professor with zero time in the field?

And this would also be the perfect time for questions -- specifically, the white professor asking questions of the black teens.