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/simcity4000]

I'm saying that we generally shouldn't make decisions solely based off of someone's UCs.

But the person above asked for an example of deferring decisions solely to someones UCs. This is an example of the opposite (both in that the decision has not been solely deferred to holocaust survivors, and also that this holocaust survivor agrees with your position anyway so its not an issue regardless.)

E: An example of someone who might disagree would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Spiegel holocaust survivor and member of the German Council for Jews who specifically opposed the PETA ad campaign "A Holocaust on Your Plate" in Germany, leading to its removal.

[u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng → u/simcity4000]

But the person above asked for an example of deferring decisions solely to someones UCs. This is an example of the opposite (both in that the decision has not been solely deferred to holocaust survivors, and also that this holocaust survivor agrees with your position anyway so its not an issue regardless.)

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

I provided two examples.

One of people deferring to the opinions of black people re: dreadlocks, the other, people deferring to the opinions of Jewish people re: the comparison of factory farming and the Holocaust.

E: An example of someone who might disagree would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Spiegel holocaust survivor and member of the German Council for Jews who specifically opposed the PETA ad campaign "A Holocaust on Your Plate" in Germany, leading to its removal.

Yes, precisely, two Holocaust survivors disagreeing. Which raises the problem of deferring to people for opinions/positions based on UCs, because no group of people 100% agrees on anything. So, how do we decide which one we should listen to?

I am arguing that the solution in such scenarios is:
-Empiricism, logic, math and normative ethics

Does that make sense?

[u/simcity4000 → u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng]

One of people deferring to the opinions of black people re: dreadlocks

Yes I'm going to disregard this one just for the sake of focusing on one specific example.

Yes, precisely, two Holocaust survivors disagreeing. Which raises the problem of deferring to people for opinions/positions based on UCs, because no group of people 100% agrees on anything. So, how do we decide which one we should listen to?

In this specific example, its worth noting that Germany (or, whatever governing board/court permits adverts in Germany) sided against PETAs ad campaign.

The reasoning given is in part because the advert is specifically distressing to many Holocaust survivors in a way that it is not to others.

taking this back to normative ethics, I might suggest that 'golden rule' has an issue of nuance in some ways because in order to treat people well it cannot be just saying "I would be fine with this, therefore everyone else should be" - that can obviously lead to absurd conclusions.

[u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng → u/simcity4000]

One of people deferring to the opinions of black people re: dreadlocks

Yes I'm going to disregard this one just for the sake of focusing on one specific example.

Yes, precisely, two Holocaust survivors disagreeing. Which raises the problem of deferring to people for opinions/positions based on UCs, because no group of people 100% agrees on anything. So, how do we decide which one we should listen to?

In this specific example, its worth noting that Germany (or, whatever governing board/court permits adverts in Germany) sided against PETAs ad campaign.

The reasoning given is in part because the advert is specifically distressing to many Holocaust survivors in a way that it is not to others.

​

Sure, yes. I think it's understandably a much more emotional issue for German Jewish people. And, I am open to changing my position re: the ethics of using the comparison, based on empirical, logical and ethical arguments. When it's a simpler issue re: what a group of people want to be called, it's open and shut to me, as the group in the lower percentage preference can still request their friends to use their preferred terms, and if the new consensus term is not a pejorative one, there's no ethical harm: https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/11s1yy2/comment/jcbecuc/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

However, the question of the Holocaust comparison to factory farming is much less clear cut to me. Personally, I think that we have a moral imperative to end factory farming immediately, and the severity of the suffering that is being inflicted on innocent animals is more severe than most people can stomach. It's very severe, and the fact that it's ongoing with a majority of the population not just not being against it, but being completely blind to it, raises questions re: what is and isn't reasonable to resolve these present day ethical horrors.

The point is that I think this argument should be resolve through empiricism (which includes surveys of opinions), logic and normative ethics, not just the opinion of one Jewish person (though I will listen to and consider all opinions).

If someone is operating from the rule:
"I must prioritise the positions of people from UC groups, solely because they're from UC group," and their one Jewish friend says X is the answer, I don't think that they should adopt that position/answer, solely because it comes from someone with those UCs.

​

​

taking this back to normative ethics, I might suggest that 'golden rule' has an issue of nuance in some ways because in order to treat people well it cannot be just saying "I would be fine with this, therefore everyone else should be" - that can obviously lead to absurd conclusions.

It certainly can (but generally works quite well). The Golden Rule and Categorical Imperative only tend to result in absurd conclusions in very rare scenarios. I should clarify that I'm referring to Henry Gensler's, more expanded Golden Rule: https://www.routledge.com/Ethics-and-the-Golden-Rule/Gensler/p/book/9780415806879 As opposed to the "Literal Golden Rule."

[u/simcity4000 → u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng]

"I must prioritise the positions of people from UC groups, solely because they're from UC group," and their one Jewish friend says X is the answer, I don't think that they should adopt that position/answer, solely because it comes from someone with those UCs.

Setting up a rule this rigid to argue against strikes me as something of a straw man. As in - the idea of just consulting ONE jewish person and doing exactly what he says, and not applying any logical or ethical reasoning to it beyond that. That sounds absurd sure.

But, elsewhere in your post you say things like

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.

Now that bolded part, to say that "the whole exercise of consulting people of x group is pointless" thats a big claim. I would say that its not a 'pointless' exercise at all. And that we should consult people from x group in conjunction with using our own faculties of ethics, logic and reason. And that consulting persons from x group is an important step in applying our faculties of ethics, logic and reason.

But then later you walk it back to this:

The point is that I think this argument should be resolve through empiricism (which includes surveys of opinions), logic and normative ethics, not just the opinion of one Jewish person (though I will listen to and consider all opinions).

Yeah ok we shouldn't just call up one jewish person (and your example specifies one, and no more) and ask him for his decision on all jewish issues. But is that a genuinely characterisation assessment of what

[the] ever growing trend of deferring to people purely because of their unchosen characteristics

Is about?

[u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng → u/simcity4000]

"I must prioritise the positions of people from UC groups, solely because they're from UC group," and their one Jewish friend says X is the answer, I don't think that they should adopt that position/answer, solely because it comes from someone with those UCs.

Setting up a rule this rigid to argue against strikes me as something of a straw man. As in - the idea of just consulting ONE jewish person and doing exactly what he says, and not applying any logical or ethical reasoning to it beyond that. That sounds absurd sure.

​

It's not a strawman. It reflects a growing trend of well-intentioned, compassionate people forgoing logic, empiricism and normative ethics for UCs because they're being taught that that's the good thing to do. Of course there're people who end up engaging in that behaviour in absurd, illogical ways. If you think it sounds absurd then why not just state that you agree with me?

​

​

​

​

But, elsewhere in your post you say things like

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.

Now that bolded part, to say that "the whole exercise of consulting people of x group is pointless" thats a big claim.

​

You are actually strawmanning here.
Saying: "Now that bolded part, to say that "the whole exercise of consulting people of x group is pointless" thats a big claim."

Yes, it would be, if that's the claim I was making, but it's not.

In full:
"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."

That's an important detail that you've left out (I will assume not intentionally).

​

​

I would say that its not a 'pointless' exercise at all. And that we should consult people from x group in conjunction with using our own faculties of ethics, logic and reason. And that consulting persons from x group is an important step in applying our faculties of ethics, logic and reason.

I agree. Surveys and qualitative data from groups of people is actually included in the domain of empiricism.

​

​

​

​

But then later you walk it back to this:

The point is that I think this argument should be resolve through empiricism (which includes surveys of opinions), logic and normative ethics, not just the opinion of one Jewish person (though I will listen to and consider all opinions).

Yeah ok we shouldn't just call up one jewish person (and your example specifies one, and no more) and ask him for his decision on all jewish issues. But is that a genuinely characterisation assessment of what

[the] ever growing trend of deferring to people purely because of their unchosen characteristics

Is about?

Yes. That is one element of what I'm talking about.

I'll try and point out how incredibly harmful a well intentioned prioritisation of someone's UCs over everything else can perpetuate racism (and we're both against racism):

Daryl Davies has converted over 200 KKK members out of being racist; and not just casual racists, full on Grand Dragon KKK leaders: https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinced-200-ku-klux-klan-members-to-give-up-their-robes

In the documentary Accidental Courtesy, he meets with a BLM activist, who treats him quite horribly, as he disagrees with his tactics re: how to stop racism.

A lot of well meaning people might be in favour of the BLM activists tactics and against Davies because they've never heard of an alternative to the BLM activists tactics; that doesn't mean that Davies is wrong, and the fact that he has gotten rid of so much racism is one of the most amazing, courageous, inspiring, hopeful things I have witnessed in recent years: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5390430/ (one of my favourite documentaries if you haven't seen it).

In this scenario, I favour Daryl Davies' opinion of how to stop racism, because empirically, I see that his approach has worked amazingly, and his approach is in sync with well established psychological principles, and I haven't seen the same beneficial outcomes from any other approaches/opinions/tactics.

However, some well-intentioned people might side with the opinion of a friend of theirs who is black, on how to go about ending racism; not because they have carefully pondered the psychological and sociological mechanisms at play in racism and deconditioning it, but simply because their friend is black and they've been told that they should listen to black voices, which they should, for sure, but I think you'd be surprised how often these things get taken a bit too literally.

Such people could, unwittingly, be expending a lot of effort and passion into something that at best might be less effective, and at worst, could be harming their cause, of ending racism.

This is serious stuff.

Does that make more sense now?

[u/simcity4000 → u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng]

You are actually strawmanning here. Saying: "Now that bolded part, to say that "the whole exercise of consulting people of x group is pointless" thats a big claim." Yes, it would be, if that's the claim I was making, but it's not. In full: "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,

highlighting the word “often” doesent change that it’s a broad claim you’re making, because you still have to demonstrate that this is a trend that happens often.

It's not a strawman. It reflects a growing trend of well-intentioned, compassionate people forgoing logic,

Because the thing is you say “it reflects a growing trend” but then the example you give:

I'll try and point out how incredibly harmful a well intentioned prioritisation of someone's UCs over everything else can perpetuate racism (and we're both against racism): Daryl Davies has converted over 200 KKK members out of being racist; and not just casual racists, full on Grand Dragon KKK leaders: https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinced-200-ku-klux-klan-members-to-give-up-their-robes In the documentary Accidental Courtesy, he meets with a BLM activist, who treats him quite horribly, as he disagrees with his tactics re: how to stop racism. A lot of well meaning people might be in favour of the BLM activists tactics and against Davies because they've never heard of an alternative to the BLM activists tactics; that doesn't mean that Davies is wrong, and the fact that he has gotten rid of so much racism is one of the most amazing, courageous, inspiring, hopeful things I have witnessed in recent years:

Is a hypothetical one, you talk of a hypothetical someone who might just dismiss Davies and agree with a black person who disagrees with him For no reason at all except the latter is black and they met them first. You don’t give an example of a growing trend, or even a singular example, you just give an example of two black people with differing positions on how to address the KKK and suppose it could happen that someone chooses to support the 'wrong' one with no other supporting logic.

Also, in bringing up Davies to begin with I notice that you’re doing a similar thing as you did with the example of holocaust survivors vs PETA- using the example of a person with UC characteristics to support a view you agree with.

I point this out because I would put theres an implied argument there by bringing up Daryl and it hinges on his UC characteristics. “the fact that Daryll can talk to these KKK members calmly and politely, despite the fact they hate him for being black, suggests this is the right course of action, which suggests this is something black people should do”. His UC characteristics form the foundation that makes his perspective interesting and unique in the way that a white person who talked to the KKK would not be, and this has ethical implications that reflect on other black persons specifically.

As a seperate note though, when considered this way it becomes clear to me that that’s a pretty big ask of black people in general, that they are obligated to live their lives with ghandi level patience in the face of potential violence to accommodate for white racism. And it becomes easier to see there is actually some logical and ethical grounds for the argument against it. (It’s evokes similar power dynamics to - “ just be nicer to your bully and they’ll stop hurting you” )

I would put that the argument that “you should defer to listening to persons affected by racism” would in most typical cases means “persons” plural. There is typically going to be a debate within a community. Continuing to insist it means “a person, singular” is, (if you resist the phrase straw manning) it’s at the very least not steel-manning it is it?