| > My reply said it depends upon what actually happened. Your quoted part quotes me as saying it's perhaps rude (perhaps because we don't know what actually happened). So if I'm potentially accepting it's rude how am i assuming it isn't important? Youre the one that seems to be doing all the assuming here. The you in my statement was generically directed towards someone calling another person's described identity silly. > What I was disagreeing with is the statements about authority and expertise. It's got nothing to do with authority. And I would love it if expertise came into the picture at all. But I would guess any etymological defense of any word would probably be cited as more evidence of X group subjugating Y group, and as blackness is a lived experience then nobody but yourself is qualified to say whether you're black or not, and any attempt to biologically or socialogically delineate blackness is racist or something and further evidence of subjugation. No, this is missing the point quite dramatically. You have no authority nor expertise in telling someone what their identity is, not because you lack credentials or a shared experience, but because you're not them. It is their identity. It's rude to say something like this even if you're Black as well. > Theres a difference between commenting on something and commenting on someone who identified as that thing. If someone tells you they identify as X, and you say X is silly, there's an overt implication that you have just called them silly. > It's the difference between talking about obesity and calling someone fat. I have just as much right to an opinion as the person who identified as obese, to talk about obesity. They are no more or less an expert on obesity just because they are (or identify as being) obese. You can have whatever opinions you want. But when you share an opinion that implies a negative trait about obese people, you will have insulted any obese people taking part in the conversation, or even implicitly not in the conversation but just known to the participants. Everything you're saying here seems to suppose that you can only be held accountable for the first order effects of your speech. Which is perhaps how the law works, but it isn't how people communicate and understand each other. |
> implies a sense of authority or expertise that you really have no business in.
What about this is inherently unique to the specific word 'silly'? Further the "no business in" applies to someone's (self identified) race.
So every way I try and parse this, I get to a general statement.
So why, when I challenge said general statement, do you insert the word 'silly' in there?
I'm not talking about that, I'm not talking about insulting people. That is rude. What I am challenging is the idea that you can't comment because it
> implies a sense of authority or expertise that you really have no business in.
That statement isn't limited to rude things.
So rather than running off saying > Everything you're saying here seems to suppose that you can only be held accountable for the first order effects of your speech.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Why don't you read your first post and even if you didn't intend for it to be interpreted that way, at least accept that I did.