←back to thread

1005 points femfosec | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.764s | source
Show context
jxidjhdhdhdhfhf ◴[] No.26613220[source]
This is kind of the end result we're heading for, where you can only talk candidly with people who are equal or lower than you on the oppression hierarchy. The shitty part is that I'm pretty sure 99% of people are reasonable human beings but the media has to make it seem like that isn't the case so the risk equation changes. Similar to how kids used to roam around the neighborhood but now it's deemed too risky because the media makes it seem like there are murderers lurking around every corner.
replies(14): >>26613585 #>>26613799 #>>26614012 #>>26614097 #>>26614153 #>>26614208 #>>26614300 #>>26614313 #>>26614525 #>>26614526 #>>26614533 #>>26614620 #>>26614665 #>>26614667 #
cronix ◴[] No.26613585[source]
> where you can only talk candidly with people who are equal or lower than you on the oppression hierarchy

Wouldn't someone talking to someone "lower" on the "oppression hierarchy" just be what we basically have today? That sounds like "privilege," or an "imbalanced power dynamic." I think you'll only be able to talk to equals, whatever that is, and by whatever metric is en vogue for that day.

replies(5): >>26613697 #>>26613812 #>>26613814 #>>26614227 #>>26615630 #
retrac ◴[] No.26614227[source]
I do some work with HIV prevention. Sometimes I give talks where I'm very blunt about the realities of HIV among men who have sex with men. I've watched people immediately shift from mild hostility and discomfort to wholehearted acceptance of what I am saying, when I tell them I'm gay myself.

In that circumstance, I think it is clear that my sexual orientation is the basis by which they are judging the authoritativeness I have to speak on the topic. Never mind the formal qualifications, or the logic or veracity of what I am actually saying. Like, I know we all have little unconscious checklists like that for judging whether someone is credible, but it is uncomfortable to see the effect live.

replies(6): >>26614476 #>>26614494 #>>26614528 #>>26614624 #>>26614750 #>>26615486 #
fastball ◴[] No.26614750[source]
You see this on Reddit all the time, every day.

Someone wants to disagree with whatever nonsense the hivemind is raving about in the moment, but in order to do so they have to prostrate themselves and make it clear whose side they're on before they make their (often very valid) point.

e.g. "I hate Trump just has much as the rest of you but..." or "Look we need to be super supportive of X group and my dad is actually X but..."

replies(2): >>26614899 #>>26615524 #
kodah ◴[] No.26614899[source]
That happens all the time here too, which is an interesting note.
replies(1): >>26615057 #
1. Shugarl ◴[] No.26615057[source]
Doesn't this happen in pretty much any group ? The more what you say goes against the consensus, the more the group will reject it.
replies(1): >>26616982 #
2. kodah ◴[] No.26616982[source]
No, I don't think so. It certainly wasn't a thing that I was aware of prior to roughly two years ago. Maybe it's "normal" now but that's probably because certain people made you show your identity card in order to dissent.

I've noticed this trend where people started to accuse each other of psychological trickery a lot. I think it descends as a "defense" from that. I was never really sure of how many psychological games were really being played and how much people just reached for the terms to use as dismissal from criticism.

replies(1): >>26617560 #
3. fastball ◴[] No.26617560[source]
Yeah, if you believe the internet, "gaslighting" is something that people are trying to do to you all the time.