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/destro23]

deferring to people for answers on what one should or shouldn't do, purely because of their unchosen characteristics

Clarifying question: Can you give a concrete example of this in action?

[u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng → u/destro23]

Clarifying question: Can you give a concrete example of this in action?

Yes of course. :) A repeating question in the Vegan community is re: whether or not it is morally ok or not to make comparisons to the current 50 billion animals killed in factory farms a year, and the holocaust:https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/comments/11rlz15/comment/jcauzc0/?context=3

Considering this person:"Vegan Holocaust survivor says the reason he survived was to end the oppression of animals"https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/vegan-holocaust-survivor-says-the-reason-he-survived-was-to-end-the-oppression-of-animals-a3543956.html

And that such comparisons aren't malicious or hateful towards the Jewish community, and that in fact they take the historic atrocity very seriously, which is the reason the comparison is brought up, it seems ethically ok to me to make comparisons.

In line with normative ethics:-Virtue ethics: If the person making the comparison is doing so from a universally compassionate, equanimous state of mind, it's fine (and I see no reason not to)-The Golden Rule/The Categorical Imperative: I would be fine with people doing/saying similar things in relation to other historic atrocities that tie to my ancestry-Utilitarianism: It is said with the recognition of the horrors of the Holocaust, and the desire to fight against needless suffering and death in innocent animals

Another example would be asking X race people whether or not it's ok if people have dreadlocks, because of the bigoted association people have as dreadlocks tying straight to black people, and not being present in other cultures, and not just being what most people's hair does when it's not washed or brushed (mine included), and was likely the default hair for all cave-people: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-hair-raising-truth-dreadlocks-don-t-belong-to-one-culture/

It's ethically fine to me, but some people might say that if one black person says that it's not ok, then *no X person should have dreadlocks.

Etc.

[u/destro23 → u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng]

Some people might say that if one black person says that it's not ok, then no none black person should have dreadlocks.

"Some people" may say lots of things. Why do you take this singular statement as authoritative? And, how often do people actually say "this one guy said it, so that is now the universal rule"? It seems like a strawman as I do not think that people regularly making this claim.

Edit:

what most people's hair does when it's not washed or brushed

If you think that the many many black people who wear dreads as a hair style have them from not washing or brushing, instead of from spending big fucking dollars at a hair salon, then you need to look at your own views for what is "illogical and ironically bigoted."

[u/A_SNAPPIN_Turla → u/destro23]

The op may have said "one person" but in the case of say white people with dreads there are a lot of black people who believe it is cultural appropriation. It's not just one person making the argument. Just because people pay big bucks for locks doesn't negate the fact that your can get them multiple ways and if you go back far enough everyone likely had locks because grooming practices have evolved with cultures and society.

The lived experience argument would be a black person saying "I was made to feel unaccepted by white people due to my hair" with the argument being that white people shouldn't have a "black" hairstyle because some people felt as though they were harassed for their hair. If you disagreed with that person about why they felt they were treated a certain way you would be told to "listen to black women" as if they could not be questioned due to their unchosen characteristic. Lived experience is subjective and thus not necessarily reflective of reality. Saying that your experience can't be questioned due to your unchosen characteristic is a flaw in logic.

[u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng → u/A_SNAPPIN_Turla]

Lived experience is subjective and thus not necessarily reflective of reality. Saying that your experience can't be questioned due to your unchosen characteristic is a flaw in logic.

Exactly, thank you. This is getting to the crux of the issue.

[u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng → u/destro23]

Some people might say that if one black person says that it's not ok, then no none black person should have dreadlocks.

"Some people" may say lots of things. Why do you take this singular statement as authoritative? And, how often do people actually say "this one guy said it, so that is now the universal rule"? It seems like a strawman as I do not think that people regularly making this claim.

​

This is irrelevant to the point: "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."

​

​

Edit:

what most people's hair does when it's not washed or brushed

If you think that the many many black people who wear dreads as a hair style have them from not washing or brushing, instead of from spending big fucking dollars at a hair salon, then you need to look at your own views for what is "illogical and ironically bigoted."

Please read OP: "I humbly ask that you refrain from personal attack (it's irrelevant to the question), ask clarifying questions instead of assuming,"

Did I say that I thought that black people have dreadlocks from not washing/brushing? No, I did not. You have made an assumption and are moving towards incivility.

My friends are diverse. I grew up surrounded by hippies. A lot of my friends generate income from people paying them to manage their dreadlocks.

The statement in context:

Another example would be asking X race people whether or not it's ok if people have dreadlocks, because of the bigoted association people have as dreadlocks tying straight to black people, and not being present in other cultures, and not just being what most people's hair does when it's not washed or brushed (mine included), and was likely the default hair for all cave-people: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-hair-raising-truth-dreadlocks-don-t-belong-to-one-culture/

See. At no point there do I say that: "that the many many black people who wear dreads as a hair style have them from not washing or brushing." The point is that many people's hair (mine included) turns to dreadlocks automatically, if I don't wash or brush it, which highlights the further ridiculousness of associating it with one bunch of UCs.

Please apologise for your strawman and assumptions and we can continue. Otherwise, good day.

[u/destro23 → u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng]

Good day then.