tripu
boosted
> _“What I look for in a #book is a voice that sounds fresh, a relationship with language that feels exciting, and a vision of the world that enlightens or challenges me, or, just occasionally, changes the way I see the world in some degree. When I find at least one of those things, then that’s what I’d probably call a good book. When I find all of them, then the adjective “great” may come to mind. But it’s an adjective I use sparingly. Tolstoy is great, and Shakespeare, and García Márquez, and Kafka, and Woolf, and Morrison, and Proust, and Joyce, and very few others. Good books are enough for most of us most of the time.”_
— [Salman Rushdie](https://salmanrushdie.substack.com/p/an-occasional-series-ask-me-almost)
@delawen I get that.
My concern is that your “algorithm” assumes that #privilege is all that matters, and that someone less privileged than you will always be right in their demands.
What if they are confused, fail to see that you are _less_ privileged than them in some other important way, exaggerate their complaints, are dishonest, or mistakenly attribute to your “privilege” an issue that is actually caused by some other factor?
Thus my suggestion of inserting the step _“evaluate their claims rationally”_ and being open to the possibility that sometimes, well, that other person may be wrong and one does not need to change his/her behaviour.
@delawen That was my point.
#Privilege isn't clear-cut, immutable, nor uni-dimensional. eg: does a white woman hold privilege over a black man, or viceversa? Would that #power balance reverse if one of them became suddenly disabled? If one of them became rich? How does that privilege work (or matter) if they live in opposite sides of the globe, speak mutually unintelligible languages, and work in different sectors?
Also, can't someone with _less_ privilege than you act in ways that hurt you, attack you unjustly, or simply advance their interests against yours? If so, why shouldn't they “shut up and listen” when you complain, and “work on changing themselves”, too?
One can (one _should_) “rationally understand” ideas that are not “their experience” — that's the point of trying to be rational and objective over being emotional and subjective.
That's why I think my “third step” subsumes and expands on yours.
Sometimes reflection will lead you to conclude that you hold some kind of privilege, and to improve your behaviour accordingly. Other times the claims made may prove to be dishonest or exaggerated, or fail to take relevant factors into account. Sometimes privilege will have nothing to do with the dispute.
This is what I wrote (perhaps your instance doesn't support MD formatting?)
Why not:
Periodical reminder that if someone,
~~from a less privileged group~~
**whoever they are,**
tells you you are
~~using your privilege against them~~
**hurting them in some way,**
the first step is to shut up and listen.
The second step is to do work to understand why they feel like that.
**The third step is to evaluate their claims rationally.**
And the
~~third~~
**fourth**
step is to
~~work on changing yourself~~
**either change your behaviour, or explain to them why you are dismissing their arguments — depending on the outcome of the previous step.**
?
tripu
boosted
🇳🇱
tripu
boosted
tripu
boosted
#Sciences (or so) that purport to study, or that are supposed to revolve around, _one_ #idea:
* Physics → energy
* Chemistry → matter
* Economics → scarcity
* Finance → value
More? (Not counting narrow ones, eg “entomology → insects”.)
I discarded: philosophy (it's bigger than knowledge); computing science (bigger than information).
tripu
boosted
80% of victims of the ✝️ #CatholicChurch in 🇫🇷 #France since the 1950s are #boys (mostly #men by now).
👦👦👦👦👧
News article:
* Headline: “girls”, not “boys”.
* Focus and first sentences are on female victims.
A sign of hope, though:
> _“Female #pedophilia exists and unfortunately the media never talk about it.”_
https://news.yahoo.com/nuns-raped-girls-crucifixes-female-110940545.html
Halfway through this #podcast #episode, and #BariWeiss has shared already so much wisdom:
Well, the man is explicitly against democracy, for authoritarianism, and is calling for a king, no less. He didn't left much inside the closet!
Sorry for insisting on these points again. It's just that I'm worried that sometimes decent people (like you) seem to make too generous a reading of his ideas, inadvertently contributing to popularising his agenda.
I definitely agree with you about the difference between supporting or promoting anything, and enforcing it through government.
