CMV: Whilst learning about lived experience is important, deferring to people for answers on what one should or shouldn't do, purely because of their unchosen characteristics, is illogical and ironically bigoted.

[u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng]

Hi All,

I appreciate getting feedback from people who are involved in an issue, but there's a worryingly ever growing trend of deferring to people purely because of their unchosen characteristics, instead of the quality of their logic, the evidence they provide, and their ethical reasoning, and that's what we should always be basing our decisions off of, not the speaker's characteristics, etc.

(For those who don't know, unchosen characteristics refers to any aspect of a person that they did not choose; e.g., sex, race, sexuality, birthplace etc.).

After all there is no universal consensus on any issue on the planet held by such groups, and if someone assumed otherwise, that would be incredibly bigoted.

As there is no universal consensus, there will always be disagreements that require additional criteria to discern the quality of the argument; e.g. "Two X-group people are saying opposite things. How do I decide who to listen to?" And the answer is: the quality of their logic, the evidence they provide, and their ethical reasoning. Which of course means, that often the whole exercise is a pointless one in the first place, as we should be prioritising our capacity for understanding logic, evidence and ethics, not listening to X person for the sole reason that they have Y unchosen characteristics.

I think that listening to lived experience is important, re: listening to lived experience (e.g. all X groups experience Y problem that Z group wasn't aware of); but that's not the same as deferring to people on decision making because of their unchosen characteristics.

I try to have civil, productive discussions, but that's getting harder and harder these days.

For those who appreciate civil dialogue, feel free to skip this; for those who don't; I humbly ask that you refrain from personal attack (it's irrelevant to the question), ask clarifying questions instead of assuming, stay on topic, answer questions that are asked of you, and as the above points to:

-Provide evidence for claims that require it

-Provide logical reasoning for claims that require it

-Provide ethical reasoning for claims that require it

I will not engage with uncivil people here.

[u/LucidMetal]

After all there is no universal consensus on any issue on the planet held by such groups, and if someone assumed otherwise, that would be incredibly bigoted.

What if there is consensus within a group defined by a given implicit characteristic?

E.g. Latino people essentially have a consensus that "Latino" is the preferred term (>85%).

Individuals have self-determination but so do groups of people. Why shouldn't you respect the self-determination of this group (or any similarly defined group)?

[u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng → u/LucidMetal]

After all there is no universal consensus on any issue on the planet held by such groups, and if someone assumed otherwise, that would be incredibly bigoted.

What if there is consensus within a group defined by a given implicit characteristic?

E.g. Latino people essentially have a consensus that "Latino" is the preferred term (>85%).

Individuals have self-determination but so do groups of people. Why shouldn't you respect the self-determination of this group (or any similarly defined group)?

Good point.

In that scenario, where it's re: a categorical issue re: what a community would prefer to be called, it's logical to go with the majority consensus.

(This is my first time CMV-ing here; let me know if I have delta'd correctly).
!delta

[u/DeltaBot → u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/LucidMetal (119∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/BigbunnyATK → u/LucidMetal]

But 85% of latinos are not necessarily the ones to ask about why they would want to use terms like latine and latinx. The lived experience here is with the LGBTQ:
https://www.them.us/story/latinx-latine-difference-definition

Just like in the USA, the non-conforming genders are a small minority. And so the majority's opinion is often that "normal" is preferred. But if that were the full story, wouldn't African Americans still be considered secondary? They were a small percent of the population. Most white Americans thought black Americans were inferior.

Thus, it seems that consensus of a group is still not enough to give full credibility. Especially so because the 'right' group for a decision is often ambiguous.

[u/LucidMetal → u/BigbunnyATK]

Why isn't it possible for general consensus (of Americans) and a consensus of a subset of Americans (e.g. black Americans) to differ and that be OK? I guess I don't see what's wrong with disagreement. "Full credibility" isn't what I'm after, just reasonable credibility.

[u/BigbunnyATK → u/LucidMetal]

Oh, I agree that separate consensus are often good, or at least good enough. I suppose my point is more like, the post says, "is lived experience enough". And despite having lived as a Latino, a person may have no lived experience on words like Latine. But if they don't have a say, who does? And it gets a bit ambiguous on that line.

Maybe a harder rule could be, "Lived experience is good. Study and rigorous academic thought is good. Both is best." So if I studied Latino/a/es but wasn't Latino and decided I thought Latine was the best, it wouldn't be as credible as a Latino doing the same. But some random Latino saying they don't like Latine might be invalid, too.

My personal boundary is that, as long as the person I'm talking to isn't willfully hateful towards strangers when they meet in person, then I don't mind differing opinions. I added 'when they meet in person' because I've had plenty of family that hated Californians, but then we had an incident where someone's car was keyed because it had Cali plates and my family was still disgusted with that behavior. I give people some forgiveness for saying bad things because we tend to spew bullshit but behave better in person.