askchapo

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.

It really depends on

1: how much do you actually know about the topic 2: who is your audience

If you are really well studied on Iran, but talking to an Iranian gusano, no amount of facts really matter because it isn't about the truth to this audience. Don't waste your time (or be added to their list as a threat)

If you are talking to a friend, coworker, family member, or someone you organize with who is actually open to being educated and you are knowledgeable on a topic, I would say it is your responsibility as a communist to educate others.

Being aware of your privileges might change how you communicate so that the audience can receive what you are saying, but it doesn't preclude you from being able to talk about a topic you are knowledgeable about. The whole point of treating Marxism as a science is that it is universal, if you are doing it correctly your identity shouldn't be in conflict with an analysis of material reality. It is only a conflict with the audience's desire to hear someone with your identity speak on something

To a more recent example here on hexbear, I make it a point to challenge people talking about Venezuela with the "no investigation no right to speak" line because the people dooming about Venezuela literally have no idea what they are talking about and are just coping with their pessimism by preemptively discarding a revolutionary movement comprised of millions of people who need our support. They read a headline or one particular article and form their entire opinion about a subject over it. It's like when all the libs suddenly had opinions on Ukraine despite not knowing anything about maidan or systemic annihilation of ethnic Russians for a decade before the SMO.

I do that one because people reading who might not be commenting need to see a correct and well informed line on the topic, and they need to see someone pushback against ultras and wreckers, otherwise they are only going to see bullshit liberal idealist takes and think they are correct. Combating liberalism is another responsibility of communists after all.

your opinion probably isn't needed.

If you have facts, quotes, or citations they can be appropriate to bring up. I'd correct a gusano trying to claim Fidel was always a homophobe every time. i'm not going to get into a debate with a grindset bro about what Du Bois thought but i have been like "yeah i dunno about that, maybe check out Dr. Jared Ball's book"

our favorite ethnomusicologist said some lib shit about Iran and i'm not going to get into it with him because youtube comments aren't a productive place to be like "hey man your geopolitical analysis sucks"

learning what "speaking over" someone meant has helped me in this regard. Basically, dont speak for someone. Certain things are permissible if they are well known and it depends on who you are speaking to (such as trying to educate others to lessesn their micro-aggressions) chortle tortle has spoken to why this can also be problematic and or when it becomes useful.

taking away their agency by reinterpreting, summarizing, or completely replacing their actual words with your own narrative.

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?

IDK anything about this, but sounds like a scenario you probably shouldn't say anything if you don't have enough additional knowledge and background context to stand your ground against a rapid response gish gallop.

Make good arguments.

Telling people that they're wrong is generally the absolute worst thing to do, if you want to change their minds. If you're having a public debate it's done for the sake of the listeners.

Being blunt lecturing is reserved for people who already want to listen to you. It takes skill built through experience to be able to determine a way to approach someone, without setting off their "fight or flight" mode. Material contributions > Words when it comes to building trust within a community that you care about approaching, always. Otherwise you inevitably come across as a speculator.

Yes you can educate people who are willing to learn and are ignorant of a topic, but often people forget that the person they're speaking to has already heard all the arguments, if they've been in a space for a long time changes are they know everything you do and they still believe what they do, you won't be able to change their mind. From the point of view of Neuroscience and Psychology you're only strengthening their already existing stance. There is literally material evidence that supports this. Yes I am a lib and you will have to search it up yourself, because I am too tired and my health is quite poor. Sorry

I feel as though it's kinda disrespectful of me to pipe up and correct the record on basically any topic

I think there is a lot of value in learning to pick your battles. Not every minor offense needs you to prepare for war. Some adversaries are not worth any engagement at all. Some adversaries are great for potshots and drivebys but terrible mudpits for full engagements.

It sounds like you’re confusing standpoint epistemology (I am white therefore I know things about being white, and do not know things about being black) with … uh … another kind of epistemology (no investigation, no right to speak).

Investigation means research, not magically becoming a different person with different life experience and privilege.

That said, a white person with advanced degrees in African American studies would be wise not to tell a Black person how their life works.

Sometimes even when you "have the right to speak", it's just not worth it. Your Iranian example reminds me of my own experience. My brother (RIP) father in law is from Cuba. Actually threw a Molotov in support of the revolution. Named his daughter after Che's girlfriend. After a couple decades in the US though, he became staunchly anticommunist. I didn't hide my politics around him, but he's this sweet old dude and I'm not going to fight with him about Cuba. We mostly just don't talk about it. If we do, I'll kind of gently ask "was it better under Batista?" and he says "of course not" and we leave it there.

In theory, if you have something meaningful to say and you're aware of your own shortcomings in perspective, you add to the conversation. Just make sure you're not monopolizing or steering the conversation away from equally qualified persons with the actual lived experience.

In practice, you shut the fuck up and nod your head even if the person speaking is saying the most reactionary bullshit you ever heard. Humans are awful at actually setting vibes aside and looking at what is actually being said. People won't care that you made a good point, they'll remember than you disagreed with someone with lived experience and then things got tense.

I might be wrong on this, but I think a white person with a privileged position does not necessarily speak always from a position totally skewed and distorted by said privilege. There's a way that you can identify with the oppressed and speak from a position that contributes to helping the oppressed. This silence cut both ways because the imperial machine will selectively use voices from some country to propagate its interests in the region. So not picking a side can actuality help the war machine limit the voice of people to the ones it selects. For example limit Chinese voices to those opposed to the Chinese regime and limit Iranian voices to the ones wanting it to be bombed. I am not white and not American and I don't see any issue if a white person approached me to discuss issues as long as they don't come from any position that they already know what's going on. If someone is humble and willing to learn then I don't see any harm being done.

Maybe im just reckoning with years of being too quiet, but everybody should have a right to speak on everything. It's important to have a voice.

What kind of speaking are you doing? Are you speaking to your own experiences? Or are you peddling in abstractions that contradict the lived experiences of people who have direct experience of the subject?

If you aren't sure of something, ask questions, state the limitations of your knowledge, create situations where you can learn more. Have one on one conversations with people who may be more knowledgeable. Engage in the work.

If you see something wrong you can say "well the people I follow of X group generally say this" when it comes to marginalized issues that are serous need of some push back and no one else is. Other wise as a white person there are various intersection issues that I just say is not my laundry.

The real fight is dealing with other white people. I think that is the main focus when you have privilege. Is going after the other people at the same cross road as you like a dog with a bone. Of course tact and shit is still a issue.

Are you American? Then don't bother, your take is probably wrong anyway. The propaganda ate your brain in the daycare already. Because... Americans don't know shit.

That aside, positionality is a shitty liberal concept that doesn't allow the dialectical development of theories.