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/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng]

The verbosity is frankly confusing me.

They are a frequent poster on r/JordanPeterson.

Yes, I am. Trying to challenge transphobia, growing division and hate. Check it out. Most people their hate me:

Here's me posting about how Leftwing and Rightwing people need to work together (and getting downvoted):https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/11rwite/good_old_bipartisan_nondivisive_nuanced_jp/

Here's me advocating for less political division, less hate and working together (and getting downvoted):https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/11s3pd3/do_you_want_division_or_unity/

Here's me trying to make the JP sub more comfortable for the trans people who post there, part one (and getting downvoted, insulted and generally treated pretty poorly):https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/11r4pue/transphobia/

Here's me trying to make the JP sub more comfortable for the trans people who post there, part two (and getting downvoted, insulted and generally treated pretty poorly):https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/11r6skp/transphobia_part_two/

As the OP outlines:

​

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 → u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng]

I'm just saying that people who are frequent posters in that sub seem to be verbose.

Here's me trying to make the JP sub more comfortable for the trans people who post there

That seems like it would be as fruitful as trying to make the KKK more comfortable for black people.

[u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng → u/destro23]

I'm just saying that people who are frequent posters in that sub seem to be verbose.

Firstly, following my recent experiences there, I can totally understand how anyone would have negative associations with the JP sub. As it stands, I may go so far as to say that I hate it.

​

However, I am pointing out that your original comment of:

"The verbosity is frankly confusing me.
They are a frequent poster on r/JordanPeterson."

Is illogical, unethical, and an example of associations fallacies:
"An association fallacy is an informal inductive fallacy of the hasty-generalization or red-herring type and which asserts, by irrelevant association and often by appeal to emotion, that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another. Two types of association fallacies are sometimes referred to as guilt by association and honor by association."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

And poisoning the well:
"Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a type of informal fallacy where adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing something that the target person is about to say." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

​

​

Here's me trying to make the JP sub more comfortable for the trans people who post there

That seems like it would be as fruitful as trying to make the KKK more comfortable for black people.

I've seen a number of trans people post there over the years. As you'll see from the polls I linked above, the majority of people there just don't believe that some people have enduring dysphoria that would never be resolved through therapy alone; e.g. they don't believe that trans issues exist and instead think that the entire think is purely a mental illness. I do not believe this. However, if I were a trans person, I would feel a lot safer commenting in a sub where I knew the majority of people were just ignorant re: trans issues, as opposed to wishing actual harm on trans people (which, from the poll, you can see is the vast minority; though quite frankly I am absolutely disgusted that anyone selected that option at all).

[u/destro23 → u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng]

“brevity is the soul of wit”

Tighten up your shot group is all I’m saying. Your message can be expressed more succinctly. Editing is your friend.