askchapo

23327 readers

113 users here now

Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.

Rules:

Posts must ask a question.
If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.
Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.
Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.

founded 6 years ago

MODERATORS

PorkrollPosadist@hexbear.net

replaceable@hexbear.net

VILenin@hexbear.net

SexUnderSocialism@hexbear.net

Wakmrow@hexbear.net

abc@hexbear.net

[Advice wanted]How much investigation is sufficient for someone to have the "right to speak" on a topic for which they are an outsider? [Serious] (hexbear.net)

submitted 1 month ago by Acute_Engles@hexbear.net to c/askchapo@hexbear.net

29 comments fedilink hide all child comments

[The tone of this post is earnest, not in any way meant to be a complaint. I want to be a better comrade]

I'm someone with a very dense cross-section of privileges. (If i didn't grow up poor i might win the least oppressed demographic trophy)

This makes me feel as though I cannot speak on anything important without coming across like I'm whitemansplaining, regardless of whether I consider myself knowledgeable on the topic.

Should i just accept that my voice isn't really needed in most conversations? (A white guy telling an iranian expat that Reza Pahlavi was actually not good for iranians isn't ever going to accomplish anything, is it?)

Not to say I'm an encyclopedia of theory but i consider myself well enough read to apply dialectical and historical materialist analysis to most topics.

I spend a lot of time around people of all walks of life and I feel as though it's kinda disrespectful of me to pipe up and correct the record on basically any topic beyond the mundane like videogame strategy.

I guess i don't even really know what kind of answer I'm looking for here. Maybe just validation that it's ok for me to be silent when someone is just plain wrong about an important topic? Idk. Thanks for reading

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] chortle_tortle@mander.xyz 20 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

I think put simply, it will never be very well received. In non-contentious company you can maybe contribute a perspective that is implied or conveyed through well studied history. But even that is precarious, and generally is not shit people want to hear. The likelihood that it will be seen as anything but ignorance is very low, and I think for a lot of those cases shutting up is valid. Simply being politically aware gives a historical information that a lot of people generally don't bother to have, but can't ever give lived experience; I try to be cognizant of that difference and let it guide me.

With that though, white people respond to white voices. If you have a presence that makes other privileged folks listen, use that to make up for others and pull privileged folks towards a more sound politics.

[–] TraschcanOfIdeology@hexbear.net 12 points 1 month ago

With that though, white people respond to white voices. If you have a presence that makes other privileged folks listen, use that to make up for others and pull privileged folks towards a more sound politics.

And use that privilege to echo and credit less privileged voices. Checking your privilege is half of the equation, knowing how to use it to uplift the people who are usually ignored because of it is way more important.

[–] Acute_Engles@hexbear.net 11 points 1 month ago

With that though, white people respond to white voices. If you have a presence that makes other privileged folks listen, use that to make up for others and pull privileged folks towards a more sound politics.

Good point. Could be a vector for self crit that i thought i had any business trying to get to a point where i am able to correct someone with a completely different life experience. I'll ruminate a while