| |
|
Okay... I think possibly, and help me out here, that you're thinking of:
What I meant to do was explain that PW's words read to me as though he was claiming to have a better grasp on homophobia, and a more humane and helpful reaction to homophobic abuse, than someone in a less privileged position, because he had been called ugly in the past; and to say that I thought that was unhelpful.
Now, as it happens I don't think that was quite what you were doing. However, I also don't think that Deva is saying that one can understand "more" about someone else's personal experience than they do themselves?. You put "more" in quotation marks, suggesting that you are quoting her, but she uses more in the the phrase a more humane and helpful reaction to homophobic abuse. I think the process there is:
1) Deva sees PW as categorising his proposed course of action as that of understanding and patience, and other courses of action as those of ignorance and self-protectionism.
2) Tannhauser says:
I think your binary opposition there is unhelpful, and further that it chooses to speak from a position of assumed knowledge of experience of prejudice based on race, gender and sexuality, and tells those who have that if they decide, with that experience, that they do not want to share a space with somebody likely to reacquaint them with it that they are acting to further ignorance.
Really, I think if anyone is suggesting that you are claiming that somebody can understand someone's personal experiences better than oneself, it's probably me, here. Except that I'm not, exactly. I'm saying what Deva is saying, essentially - that you are positioning your proposed course of action as a more humane and helpful reaction to homophobic abuse - specifically, more humane and helpful than the responses of people who beling to the groups 33 has spoken out against, whose beliefs you characterise as advancing the cause of "ignorance and self-protectionism". In effect, you are saying that people with experience of prejudice on the grounds of race, gender or sexuality who do not agree with your recommended course of action (not banning 33) are doing so because motivated by ignorance and self-protectionism. I'm not sure whether my points about the advisability of constructing this binary opposition have gotten through, or whether you have acknowledged the possibility that a viewpoint might also combine elements of your [understanding and patience] and others' [ignorance and self-protectionism] ideas.
3) Now, I think this is where things get a bit confusing. Deva has taken your statement:
My ugly face, body, voice, and "breeding" have come in for a fair amount of stick over the years.My ugly face, body, voice, and "breeding" have come in for a fair amount of stick over teh years... But many, if not the majority of people in RL face such unjust judgements with far more immediacy and intensity than I do every day. I feel very fortunate, therefore, that I don't have to face such extreme negativity on a daily basis, and would dearly love us all to share in this privileged position.
Thus:
What I meant to do was explain that PW's words read to me as though he was claiming to have a better grasp on homophobia, and a more humane and helpful reaction to homophobic abuse, than someone in a less privileged position, because he had been called ugly in the past; and to say that I thought that was unhelpful.
I don't think that it was angled in quite that way. I understood it rather to mean that you had some experience of being abused, and, while not seeking to create an equivalence between that experience of being abused on the grounds of race, gender or sexuality, you felt that the same qualities that you feel are relevant to preventing abuse as you experience it (understanding, patience) are equally relevant to preventing abuse as you do not experience it, for example on the grounds of race, gender or sexuality. Deva's reading, as I understand it, is something to the effect that being called ugly and being attacked on the groounds of sexuality are, in her experience of both, not only quantatively but qualitatively different, and the ideal response to the latter is not therefore understandable in terms of being larger doses of the response to the former. Deva, as I understand it, goes on to interpret your wish that those who are currently experiencing "negativity" at a greater intensity than you had the privilege of not experiencing that negativity as saying that, if their judgement were not being adversely affected by that experience of negativity then they would agree that the way forward is through [understanding, patience] rather than [ignorance, self-protectionism].
As it happens, I don't think that's what you were saying. However, I think that you were positing that sharing your opinion was inevitably part of a process of [understanding, patience], and not sharing it was part of a process of [ignorance, protectionism], and that ultimately therefore one's experience of hatred was only relevant insofar as it incline one to agree (correctly) or disagree (incorrectly) with your position. Put another way, and I tried to point this out with my reapplication of patience, understanding, ignorance and protectionism, you were proposing abstract nouns rather than responses, but associating those abstract nouns with responses. I certainly think we should act with wisdom, but I'm not categorically sure about what that entails.
Anyhoo, that's my feeling one what's going on there.
Back on 33, I think understanding might be an issue, but as a process rather than a concept. 33 is back on the idea that people who have raised objections to his beliefs are doing so because they do not like him - that is, that they are acting out of ignorance, if you will. So,m he posits further, even if he were to present proof of the truth of his assertions, they would not believe him [ignorance, self-protectionism]. What's important to remember here is that it is a hypothetical. If I were to say "If I made fairies fly out of my arse, you wouldn't be impressed", but unless I actually do make fairies fly out of my arse the truth or untruth of whether or not you would be impressed by it remains an open question. If 33 were to present irrefutable evidence that the gays have launched a war of genocide on goths and punks, then we would be able to judge whether personal animosity might be blinding his critics to reason. Until then, all we know is that he is saying that etc., which I think is again a way to transfer [ignorance] from 33 himself to 33's critics. Which is a cause for concern.
What confuses me somewhat about that model is that, to take the gay/fashion/male archetype discussion, when Ganesh did attempt a comparatively cool and reational analysis of the thinking behind the "male archetype" [!=ignorance, =understanding], 33's posts became progressively shorter, and fairly quickly stopped altogether. |
|
|
