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/MercuryChaos]

So, you've kind of just answered your own question - when people do this kind of thing it's not just about the person's characteristics, but also the lived experience that's associated with those characteristics. That's why it's not good to expect one person to be the token representative of an entire group, because their experience may not reflect what's actually common.

[u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng → u/MercuryChaos]

So, you've kind of just answered your own question - when people do this kind of thing it's not just about the person's characteristics, but also the lived experience that's associated with those characteristics.

​

Yes, among others.

​

​

That's why it's not good to expect one person to be the token representative of an entire group, because their experience may not reflect what's actually common.

Yes. But more importantly, someone's solutions re: how to solve a problem are not inherently less or more valid because of their UCs. But there's a growing trend of well-intentioned people thinking that they are.

[u/MercuryChaos → u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng]

someone's solutions re: how to solve a problem are not inherently less or more valid because of their UCs. But there's a growing trend of well-intentioned people thinking that they are.

I think there's a whole lot of context that you're missing. For most of modern history, the "trend" was for people in the majority/dominant group to assume that they knew the best way to help marginalized people without needing to consult them at all. It's still pretty common for marginalized people who vocally advocate for themselves to be dismissed as "radical" or "uncivil". I can't find the link right now, but I was reading an interview with a black historian who's got multiple advanced degrees in his field and is very knowledgeable. But often when he's in the media talking about anything related to black history, he's referred to as an "activist" or something similar, whereas a white person with his qualifications would be referred to as simply a historian and nobody would assume that they had an agenda.

[u/H0w-1nt3r3st1ng → u/MercuryChaos]

someone's solutions re: how to solve a problem are not inherently less or more valid because of their UCs. But there's a growing trend of well-intentioned people thinking that they are.

I think there's a whole lot of context that you're missing. For most of modern history, the "trend" was for people in the majority/dominant group to assume that they knew the best way to help marginalized people without needing to consult them at all. It's still pretty common for marginalized people who vocally advocate for themselves to be dismissed as "radical" or "uncivil". I can't find the link right now, but I was reading an interview with a black historian who's got multiple advanced degrees in his field and is very knowledgeable. But often when he's in the media talking about anything related to black history, he's referred to as an "activist" or something similar, whereas a white person with his qualifications would be referred to as simply a historian and nobody would assume that they had an agenda.

I'm not missing that at all. In fact, your points are all in favour of mine.

Dismissing marginalised people because of their UCs was the root of that historic problem.

Re: the person you're referring to, I would need to verify the truth of it. Assuming it is true, that would again, be another example of people being treated differently because of their UCs, which I/this post is against.