> _“I don’t understand how someone could not know that blackface in almost any context is inappropriate today.”_
I bet he knows that. That is why he _does not dress in blackface himself_. He just showed a piece of art where “blackface” was a feature.
There is slavery, torture, rape and much more on the façade of Greek and Roman buildings, and on their poetry: are we supposed to think that 21st-century people, including college students, are so infantile as to need prior warning and explanations before being exposed to each of those pieces of art?
> _“As for Sheng, you never actually know for sure what is going on inside someone’s brain.”_
Right. But most of the time, we don't _need_ to guess that. First, there's context, and explicit communication: a musician and educator showing a film to students is most likely showing a film to students to educate them about music — and definitely so if that is what he _says_ to them. And then, there's the Principle of Charity: when in doubt, assume the other part had the best of intentions and use the most charitable reading of his words and actions.
tripu
boosted
+bonifartius 𒂼𒄄
@Pat https://reason.com/2021/10/08/bright-sheng-university-of-michigan-othello-racism/
it's really like in wargames now, the only winning move is not to play.
he apologized and tried to clarify that he's not racist only to have that turned against him. it's kafkaesque.
🔖 80 useful, not-so-well-known #concepts to describe and understand the world:
https://twitter.com/G_S_Bhogal/status/1225561131122597896
tripu
boosted
RT @Manuel_de_BCN2@twitter.com
Kim Jong Un, flipándolo mucho con las exhibiciones militares de sus cuerpos de élite.
🐦🔗: https://twitter.com/Manuel_de_BCN2/status/1448579258255826944
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).
