I think given the context of this thread, it’s fair to mention that there are plenty on the internet who use that kind of rhetoric to invalidate any out-group opinions they don’t like. Not everyone of course, but it happens. These are some of the conversations that are lacking nuance. Sometimes the out-group has something to offer. Sometimes you just need to make them feel heard before you explain to them what they’re not getting. It’s about having the conversation. Why should anyone listen to someone if they don’t get the same respect back?
Sometimes you just need to make [the out group] feel
heard before you explain to them what they’re not getting.
When you listen to groups of affected issues, what you often hear is that they have been explaining forever, it hasn't worked, and frankly they're exhausted.
Often, the folks who ask them for "explanations" are doing so in bad faith. Perhaps you're doing so in good faith, but they have a right to be wary and/or weary.
Understand that a group being oppressed or affected by some injustice is already bearing an undue burden.
Why should anyone listen to someone if they don’t get the
same respect back?
In some cases, you may be the one being incredibly disrespectful by expecting some sort of explanation, because tons of explaining has already been done.
To name one example, there is an incredibly rich history of African-American writing, art, and other forms of expression regarding the African-American experience. To use the mildest possible word I can bring myself to type, it would be rude to expect any individual to owe me some sort of explanation. Why should they do the work of explaining (yet again, most likely) when I haven't?
Look, I get where you're coming from, but this post was specifically about places to find nuanced discussion on the internet, and in the context of that, responding to
> No one advocates that you should only speak if you lived it, we say that those who lived it must have a say if that is in any way possible.
I stand by what I said. If you're coming to the table for nuanced discussion, I don't think it makes much sense to shout down your opponent with ad hominems simply because others have argued against you in bad faith before. If you're weary of explaining something, I get that, but I don't think coming to a place full of people looking for a nuanced discussion and calling them names when they may basically be on your side already does your cause any good. I understand it, and it's a completely human reaction, but it's alienating.
