U. of Chicago tells SJWs to shove it

[Knife]

Long week at work and associated RL things, really thought about just conceding all and moving on but I respect Aly enough to attempt a response.

Now for Knife

People with privilege can cause harm to the under-privileged without knowing it. They carry around biases they dont know they have, stereotypes about gay people that cause them to act in ways that harm us, and stereotypes about black people that can do things like cause police officers to rate black people as a higher threat category than facts indicate and shoot them more frequently. It is not malicious. They dont know they are doing it. That is a problem.

I agree, in fact it is pretty much my argument in that if you accept that the privileged can do harm to those circumstances, you have to admit the under privileged (to use your terms) can do so as well. That also includes the point that they might not know they do it.

Saying that cis/het white dudes including you are part of a problem is not a personal attack on you. Your heart can and probably is in the right place and you still carry a bunch of trash inside your head. So do I. The first step to getting rid of the trash is to recognize it is there, and for that, yeah, we (minorities) have been trying to convince you (plural) of the problem (with varying degrees of success) for a long damned time. Sometimes it is going to sound personal, but most of us try not to make it personal (until it becomes that way, in any case).

Agreed. I try not to take things personal in this regard. However, when I do personally decide I dislike someone I can separate it from the issue or cause. Each individual person who advocates for a cause is not the cause, nor is any individual the only arbiter of who, what, when, and how that cause is. Large social changes and causes are more than about an individual even if that specific individual is 100% in that cause, it's about society as a whole which again plays into my point. Society gets to decided, not individuals. Writing off large swaths of people because individuals were wronged, will give you both a flawed response and backlash that might damage the cause.

Your argument here, however, is paternalistic and condescending as fuck. We are "too biased" to make our own determinations. Of course we are biased, we are talking about our own lives here, we have a stake in the matter that you don't have--and we have information in the form of life experience that you simply lack. You (plural for majority population) are simply not in a position to tell us what is and is not hurtful, what the cost to us actually is, because you have not been in our shoes and are not telepaths. We are biased in the same way that reality has a liberal bias with respect to climate change.

Where I sit, you just made my arguments above, just on the flip side of the coin. If you accept one, the other holds. Besides, I did not say anyone was too biased to make their own determinations, I said you have inherent biases to recognize in your own determinations and if you want the larger portion of a population to accept your solutions to a problem that may or may not affect the larger population you might want an unbiased third party to go through it to eliminate such biases.

You have every right to think, say, or propose any solution to a problem you want from a nuanced one to a 'fuck all straight white males and send them to hell' type responses. And I would understand the anger due to the trauma and abuse LGBT have undergone for like... ever.

And while yes, any solution is going to require lawyers and economists etc, bluntly, my opinion on the problems faced by gay people and their solutions carries more weight than yours (or anyone without a PhD in a relevant subject speaking within that particular area like an economist discussing the costs of a given initiative. Though even such PhDs are going to have to be gay themselves to actually perform the cost-benefit. Case in point, it took MDs and other scientists decades to figure out being gay is not a choice or result of trauma/neglect, which we had been telling them for decades before they even fucking bothered to do research) because I am gay and because I have had those problems literally beaten into me. I know precisely how much damage homophobic bullying does to kids, because I've been there. Done that. Got the chipped tooth and suicidal ideation.

Gah, now who is being condescending. Only female scientists can fix female problems? Only sociologist who are black can perform the cost-benefit for racial problems? No, appropriate people with appropriate credentials regardless of race or sexuality who can use information from both the minority groups and majority groups to both understand the problem and propose solutions.

That said, my sympathies to your particular situation when you were young.

And when it comes to what we want to do internally and what we find acceptable--which is what you originally argued about with respect to what labels people find acceptable--that kinda has to be just us. Because, you know...we are the ones being called things and having to decide what we actually want. Straight people swamping the proverbial vote on whether or not we consider the F-Bomb to be a slur is the result of the logic train you used.

If you want to dispute that, by all means do. I will break you, and you know it.

Sure you get to choose what labels you want. But I would only add that if you wish others to use those labels it is a matter of mutual respect. Granted, I support your cause and I'm very accepting of those things but there are plenty of people who would nominally on your side but feel attacked themselves by (arguably justified) anger against the majority and the backlash is not to use your self accepted labels. Maybe the cause can afford to lose those people, I do not know.

You were a marine if I recall yes? Assume for a moment that I am an interested and well-intentioned civilian (which has the benefit of being a correct assumption) with no particular education (which isn't in this case due to a fuckton of psych courses) engaged in a discussion with you about the experience of boot camp, and how it can be made to serve its function while also reducing the psychological phenomenon known as moral injury during and post combat deployment.

What I have to say is only going to be useful by accident or along a very narrow avenue of inquiry, because I have no god damned clue what boot camp is actually like, what it does etc beyond what I can find in a google search and reading books like On Killing that discuss the training of soldiers from a functional perspective (but unlike the actual me, fictional me wont even academically understand the material very well). I simply have no context to evaluate what it is I am reading. You've been there, done that, you have information about the subject not in the public record that I could not conceivably obtain evidence about. It is the whole reason The Mess exists, so you can talk about that sort of thing among people who Get It.

It is in fact a Safe Space, now that I think about it.

I know plenty of vets who express that very sentiment. I do not. Yes, individual experiences or experiences similar enough that only a small population would understand happen but the over reaching concept of 'boot camp' or even military is a public issue. Plenty of people who have never gone to 'boot camp' in the military have indeed gone through either similar highly structured, psychologically stressful, and physically exhausting programs that they might have either insight or empathy towards those who do. There are also plenty of people who have never encountered any of that but who have an understanding of higher logistical or organizational structures whose input into the situation is valid.

Yes, I have a very intimate understanding of what it takes to become and be a Marine and that experience is special. That said, it does not and should not be a bar for anyone to come in and put forth an opinion to how a boot camp is run or how a military is structured. Sure, plenty of opinions are stupid. Sure some ideas might be either dumb or neutral on the small individual scale but perhaps makes sense in the larger structural scale. But I try very hard (I might not always live up to it but I try) to stand by the idea that everyone gets to have their say, then if it's dumb I'll say it's dumb.

Look man, I'll be blunt. The LBGT population is a small minority, not that population size diminishes either the cause of the affect that oppression has done. But to change society you need either a plurality or majority, so at some point for the cause you're going to have to accept that the LBGT cause will consist more of non-LBGT people than actual LBGT and who have never suffered abuse for being gay, though would have empathy for LBGT, probably due to their own trauma in their life. Any (justifiable) anger against those who have not specifically been there and done that risks losing supporters. Luckily, at least for the LBG part, cultural inertia is on your (our) side. Unfortunately, the T part is even smaller population but with the same (justified) rage that runs the risk of damaging the cause or turning off supporters.

[Dragon Angel]

On mutual respect: It is earned, Knife. It is earned by listening to people in these communities. We're going to be defensive because for generations we have encountered systemic oppression. Outsiders to these communities are not entitled to respect simply because they are part of the majority. This is something we live with simply because we're forced to put up with it. We only have one life, and if we have to piss off a couple of thin-skinned "allies" in our fight simply because we are strong in our speech, then I guess that is what we will have to do. Let's ask MLK, Malcolm X, et. al. about all of that sometime.

It's also pretty condescending to wave one's majority status as a gate toward listening to marginalized people's problems ... which as Alyrium said, we've been talking about for decades, with only success in the recent decade. People who would be "turned off" from supporting us were only fair weather supporters to begin with.

You didn't give me the impression you were at all willing to put down your guard, have a bit more empathy, and listen. I can only hope your conversation with Alyrium ends up better.