Re:Apple TV Was Making a Show About Gawker. Then Tim Cook Fo...
by Chris2048 on Monday December 14, 2020 @11:56AM
(#25419795)
"privilege" is a weaponised term that relies on an overly simplistic view of power relationships.
> they could afford to simply ignore the other side after the debate because there was no risk to their personal position of privilege
What is the alternative - people not being allowed to ignore some side of a debate? This isn't just about stakes/skin in the game; It's also about quality of the debate, and when someone has so much invested in the outcome that they won't allow their position to lose, the quality wrt a free exchange of ideas, isn't likely to happen.
In fact, most versions of this can't be described as a debate at all. "shut up and listen" while being dictated to (without the right of reply) bears no similarities. This perspective is basically: "certain people believe the wrong things, so shouldn't discuss them; they should just be told what to think by the right people, and believe that.". If "wrong-thinkers" now want to debate amongst themselves without correction from self-appointed "right-thinkers", is it any wonder, even if they valued diversity of opinion/perspective?
> consequences are something for 'the other' to deal with
Can you give an example? There is a big difference between, say, the consequences of the topic of a discussion, and the consequences of the discussion itself.
> they could afford to simply ignore the other side after the debate because there was no risk to their personal position of privilege
What is the alternative - people not being allowed to ignore some side of a debate? This isn't just about stakes/skin in the game; It's also about quality of the debate, and when someone has so much invested in the outcome that they won't allow their position to lose, the quality wrt a free exchange of ideas, isn't likely to happen.
In fact, most versions of this can't be described as a debate at all. "shut up and listen" while being dictated to (without the right of reply) bears no similarities. This perspective is basically: "certain people believe the wrong things, so shouldn't discuss them; they should just be told what to think by the right people, and believe that.". If "wrong-thinkers" now want to debate amongst themselves without correction from self-appointed "right-thinkers", is it any wonder, even if they valued diversity of opinion/perspective?
> consequences are something for 'the other' to deal with
Can you give an example? There is a big difference between, say, the consequences of the topic of a discussion, and the consequences of the discussion itself.