No, I simply described my own experiences and tried to start a discussion on why we might have had such different experiences. And don't forget that this whole topic started with someone describing their experiences and understanding of privilege, which your post set up to "invalidate" (to use your understanding), and when my own experiences aligned with the author's, you "invalidated" mine by saying that yours are more important and relevant, and that I should just shut up. However, I'd argue that a better approach would be to just accept that nobody here has "invalidated" any one else's experience. Different experiences have been presented and a more productive way forward would be to discuss it and figure out why there is a discrepancy. I'm simply saying that I agree with the author, which is that the concept of privilege causes people to become defensive and can often lead to a misunderstanding of how the term is being used. Again, I've done nothing at all to reject your experience. I'm simply saying that my experience disagrees with yours and it would be interesting to figure out why. I'm beginning to see that my comment about people who claimed to have been told to "shut up" in discussions of privilege are usually misrepresenting the discussion is once again confirmed, and I agree that it makes reasonable discussion difficult but I suspect that's not what you meant. And just to be clear, since we're intent on throwing about terminology specific to a certain context without concern for that context (like "invalidating" and "experience"), there is no universal rule that says experiences should be valued and never questioned. The reason why we are supposed to be careful not to invalidate the experiences of minorities is because they live in a world where they are told and forced to shut up, where they don't have a representative voice in major decisions that affect them, and because we have a history of making very bad choices "for" them. If a racist comes along and says that their experience of black people is that they are stupid and thieves, then damn fucking right we should be "invalidating" that experience by pointing out that their views are incorrect, misunderstandings, that reality disagrees with them, etc etc.In other words, you're arguing that things I have personally experienced do not matter because your generalization of the subject disagrees. Every argument you make deprecates my experience. You aren't even putting up data - you're effectively saying "your experience is a corner case, stop talking about it because it's not valid because the preponderance of truth is on my side, trust me on this."
You're doing exactly what I said has been my experience.
And here you are, not even acknowledging me or my experience, but choosing instead to have a debate about a straw man. You aren't talking to me, you aren't talking about me, you're saying "here's this construct that I'd prefer to discuss so that I can disregard your opinion."
Effectively, you've taken an individual, discussing an individual experience, and sweeping it up into the exact same broad "STFU white boy" conversation that I opened my point by decrying.
Do you see why you can't do that and have a reasonable discussion?
kleinbl00 blocked me but still wanted to reply to me comment, so I guess I'll have to respond by replying to my own comment. Except no silencing of dissent occurred - I disagreed with the content of your dissent by presenting my own perspective. You then "silenced my dissent". Except no dismissal occurred. I don't think you can rewrite events, especially when they are still visible to everyone just above. I disagreed with you, presented my reasons why and gave an explanation as to why we might have had different experiences. Instead of pursuing the discussion, you started co-opting terminology to try to silence disagreement and then literally silenced disagreement by blocking me. At no point have I argued you deny the ideas behind privilege or anything like that, so I'm not sure what you rant at the beginning is about. The only explanation seems to be that you're feeling really defensive and so you're re-asserting that you're basically "not a racist" in hopes that that means everything else you say gets accepted. It doesn't. It's cool that you're not a racist and that you accept the scientific fact of privilege, etc etc, but it doesn't mean your understanding of how "privilege" is used in common discussion is correct. This exact discussion cements further the fact that people aren't telling you to "shut up" because I quite clearly didn't say or imply such a thing, yet it's the message you got. I haven't "struck a blow" for anything because that's not the purpose of Hubski. The appealing aspect of this community was supposed to be that it entertains discussion and intelligent responses, and that's why I presented my perspective. I honestly was not expecting such a defensive response from you. Again, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I presented a disagreement of experiences and thought I'd present my reasoning as to why that was the case. I didn't realise this was supposed to be a competition where we "win" points in a "debate" for making certain points. I was just hoping to learn more about the common attitude that you expressed. What is your argument here? That "invalidation" is always bad even in extreme circumstances? I'll wager a guess - I didn't expect you to be so defensive and if I had known I would have accounted for it in my response. As such, you're going to claim that I had either accused you of being a racist or drawn an equivalence between your position and that of a racist's? If so, no, that's not how analogies work. I was criticising the general claim that 'experiences shouldn't be invalidated' by presenting a case where it should be, and arguing that there is no reason to think your "experience" shouldn't be "invalidated" either (I'm continuing to use your co-opting of the terms there for continuity but it's getting a little silly to draw parallels between your uninformed opinion on an issue and the discriminatory life experiences of minorities).Let's be clear: I argued (not with you) that my personal experience about the discussion of "white privilege" is that the phrase is used to silence dissent, not improve dialogue. You responded by silencing my dissent. When I pointed out that you were silencing my dissent, your response is to say we should just agree that my dissent should be silenced.
I stated up front that white privilege exists, and that white privilege is a problem, and that the way people who discuss "white privilege" is doing nothing to resolve the issue. In other words, we're about 90% in agreement on the basic issue, our sole point of dissent is in the couching of the discussion. However, since you couldn't dismiss that with Pat Answer #2, you chose to dismiss everything I had to say.
The white privilege is mine. It will continue to be mine. As a white male I hold all the cards and will continue to do so until the overwhelming majority of us white males choose to give it up. Rhetorically, you can convince yourself you've struck a blow for good here. Realistically you're reminding me why people who want to talk about "white privilege" shouldn't be entertained. In other words, you destroyed a discussion in order to reinforce your own dogma.
Race relations are changed one person at a time. I don't know your race or gender and I don't care to guess. I'm a white male. Your rhetorical style might (might) win points with people who already agree with you but they aren't the ones who need convincing. Me? we already agreed about the basic problem and I'm about to mute you because of your patronizing attitude.
wow.
Let's be clear: I argued (not with you) that my personal experience about the discussion of "white privilege" is that the phrase is used to silence dissent, not improve dialogue. You responded by silencing my dissent. When I pointed out that you were silencing my dissent, your response is to say we should just agree that my dissent should be silenced. Did you ask? Did you read my linked discussion? Did you even so much as ask a question of me? HERE'S WHY IT MATTERS I stated up front that white privilege exists, and that white privilege is a problem, and that the way people who discuss "white privilege" is doing nothing to resolve the issue. In other words, we're about 90% in agreement on the basic issue, our sole point of dissent is in the couching of the discussion. However, since you couldn't dismiss that with Pat Answer #2, you chose to dismiss everything I had to say. Which is fine. I'm sure you feel justified in your actions, I'm sure you're satisfied at your rhetorical skill, and I'm sure that you're pleased to strike another small incremental blow against injustice. BUT. The white privilege is mine. It will continue to be mine. As a white male I hold all the cards and will continue to do so until the overwhelming majority of us white males choose to give it up. Rhetorically, you can convince yourself you've struck a blow for good here. Realistically you're reminding me why people who want to talk about "white privilege" shouldn't be entertained. In other words, you destroyed a discussion in order to reinforce your own dogma. Race relations are changed one person at a time. I don't know your race or gender and I don't care to guess. I'm a white male. Your rhetorical style might (might) win points with people who already agree with you but they aren't the ones who need convincing. Me? we already agreed about the basic problem and I'm about to mute you because of your patronizing attitude. wow.However, I'd argue that a better approach would be to just accept that nobody here has "invalidated" any one else's experience.
Again, I've done nothing at all to reject your experience. I'm simply saying that my experience disagrees with yours and it would be interesting to figure out why.
If a racist comes along and says that their experience of black people is that they are stupid and thieves, then damn fucking right we should be "invalidating" that experience by pointing out that their views are incorrect, misunderstandings, that reality disagrees with them, etc etc.
Says you, soon we'll have all the mixed babies and they're all gonna be super hot and everyone is going to look like they're somewhere near the equator and race problems will be over and the world will be, like, 25% sexier whether white males want it or not, KBhold all the cards and will continue to do so until the overwhelming majority of us white males choose to give it up