Re: Disabled In Socialist Countries
I'm sorry you feel that stating opinions is tromping all over the schoolyard like a bully, so to speak. I'd just like to point out, however, that I'm not the one with a previous ban for doubling down on such behaviour, so I believe this counts as the pot calling the kettle black.
I, too, have friends from many different backgrounds and who cover most forms of adversity and privilege. I, too, recognize them as individuals, and rather than try to pretend we're all the same - we aren't - I face the facts. Our lived experiences differ, so the single best thing anyone can do is listen. And that includes them, since sometimes I have good things to say too. When you can spare a moment to think instead of acting with your gut reaction and spewing party rhetoric, give a thought to the concepts of blindness and consciousness where they apply to race, gender and orientation, just for starters. There's a world of difference between those two concepts.
As far as the contention that I'm waving my academic credentials in your face, please consider this. As far as I know, the rest of you do not have any such accreditation. This means that, in these very specific grounds, I have the advantage of study and perhaps experience as well. When you try to argue with me about this, it's a little bit like arguing law with someone in law school. It doesn't mean you're wrong by default, but it does mean the burden of proof is on you to disprove what I say. I, on the other hand, take that up a notch. I see ignorance, I challenge ignorance, because it's a very powerful tool. Make people think.
You can say whatever you want. You're never going to be punished or threatened for expressing a right-ish agenda. I don't like it, but that's the glory of freedom of speech. I'll call it out as a user when I think it might hurt people - and that's why I do, by the way, but I do my best to stay polite - but if you expect to say what you want without being challenged, that's another thing. This means we obviously have every right to challenge or disprove or call one another out. I'm good with that if you are. But when we start arguing point for point, I daresay my background should give me something to go on. To put a shoe on the other foot, I am willing to hear you out, but why should I, or anyone else for that matter, take your word over the word of someone who's living it?
We're not talking about straight-up racism or bigotry in this topic, so that particular "wrecking-ball" simply doesn't apply here. I tend to agree that some on the left can be very shrill about such labels, using them as a blanket to protect themselves from active discussion. They do this because frankly, trotting out the same old arguments to deaf ears is really, really frustrating, but that doesn't make it right. I am not such a person, by the way, so please operate in accordance.
-- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
