Case (
case) wrote in
fandomsecrets2013-07-21 03:32 pm
[ SECRET POST #2392 ]
⌈ Secret Post #2392 ⌋
Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.
01.

__________________________________________________
02.

__________________________________________________
03.

__________________________________________________
04.

__________________________________________________
05.

__________________________________________________
06.

__________________________________________________
07.

__________________________________________________
08.

__________________________________________________
09.

__________________________________________________
10.

__________________________________________________
11. [repeat]
__________________________________________________
12.

Notes:
Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 064 secrets from Secret Submission Post #342.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Re: Privilege
(Anonymous) 2013-07-22 01:35 am (UTC)(link)But well, you agree that people should occasionally remember to explain the special social justice jargon to people, since it's not something everyone can just "know" out of nowhere? Because that's my main issue, it took me 5 years to figure out that people meant "not having a disadvantage" when they said "privilege". 5 years of social justice discussions that didn't make much sense because I though "huh? what?". Could have been solved if someone had just explained once. (and even here, asking mostly got assumptions and insults. Asking when you don't know something seems to be very frowned upon where social justice is concerned, which can't be good)
Re: Privilege
(Anonymous) 2013-07-22 02:25 am (UTC)(link)In your breathing example, I would say both that they have a disadvantage and that other people have an advantage. I wouldn't say that other people have privilege there, because privilege is fundamentally about whether or not people are being treated fairly and no one in that example is interacting with anyone or anything.
As to whether people need to be better about breaking down jargon, I think that depends a lot on the audience. If I'm talking to random people on the internet about science, for example, I should either try to define my terms before I use them or I should try to just avoid jargon. If I'm talking to other scientists, though, I shouldn't have to keep interrupting the discussion to define basic terms because some non-scientist overheard and didn't understand the words I was using. Online, this can get kind of fuzzy because the boundaries of discussions aren't so clear and you can reach audiences you were never even aware of. And sometimes it just gets messy. Communication is fiddly even without translation involved; add in a language barrier and all kinds of difficulties with differences in connotation can crop up.
I may have missed something, but I didn't really see anyone insulting you in this discussion. Sometimes making incorrect assumptions, but those mostly seemed to me to be based on reasonable interpretations of your word choices, and you made some incorrect assumptions too.
Some of the hostility you've encountered elsewhere is probably from incorrect assumptions or misinterpretations on one or both sides. Some of it is from the wrong audience situation I talked about above- people not wanting to explain to you because they weren't actually talking to you. And some of it is because in these sorts of discussion you sometimes get people asking questions when they don't actually want answers- and when people encounter enough of that, sometimes people want to stop answering because they can't tell who's asking real questions and who is just trying to bait them.
If you don't mind revealing yourself, sharing the fact that you're an ESL speaker might help with a lot of these situations- sometimes people will still be too tired or too intent on their conversation with someone else to define terms, but at least they'll be aware that that's where the disconnect is probably coming from.
Re: Privilege
(Anonymous) 2013-07-22 08:38 am (UTC)(link)The problem with your tallenss/shortness example is that a person with below-average height can still be taller than an even shorter person, but that doesn't make them a tall person. It makes them a short person who's taller than even shorter people. And a person of average height is neither tall nor short - they're average. I think that's what OP means by advantage and disadvantage. Being blind is a disadvantage, but having all 5 senses isn't an advantage, it's the standarn norm. Now, if someone possessed a 6th sense, that person would have an advantage, a privilege, over others.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2013-07-22 06:20 pm (UTC)(link)I think that kind of ties in with what Inkdust is saying below, about trying to reframe or displace that reference to the norm. That's part of why terms like 'cisgendered' are a thing- no one gets to occupy the position of 'unlabeled default human being' and everyone (hopefully) gets taken into consideration.