Conversing with Marginalized People™

[Robert_S]

Should we talk about the privilege that comes with being a self righteous arse that thinks their personalised life experience allows them to use the concept of bigotry and marginalisation to stifle discussion on behalf of everyone.

Everyone who defines themselves as part "of" something marginalises themselves.

As you and Bella point out, that list could be used as a tool to shut down opposition. But I think it was spot on with Tyrannical's bit.

And what the fuck is a cissexual? It's like fucking scientology or something.

A cissexual is one of those poor souls who souls who fit neatly into those role as described in the most vapid jokes and tropes about gender.

[Robert_S]

Cissexual is a fancy way of avoiding saying "normal" because some people think "normal" is a virtue.

Normal isn't a virtue, he's a vice and a temptation.

[colubridae]

http://www.derailingfordummies.com/menu.html

You know how it is. You’re enjoying yourself, kicking back and relaxing at the pub or maybe at the library; or maybe you’re in class or just casually surfing the internet, indulging in a little conversation. The topic of the conversation is about a pertinent contemporary issue, probably something to do with a group of people who fall outside your realm of experience and identity. They’re also probably fairly heavily discriminated against - or so they claim.
The thing is, you’re having a good time, sharing your knowledge about these people and their issues. This knowledge is incontrovertible - it’s been backed up in media representation, books, research and lots and lots of historical events, also your own unassailable sense of being right.

Yet all of a sudden something happens to put a dampener on your sharing of your enviable intellect and incomparable capacity to fully perceive and understand All Things. It’s someone who belongs to the group of people you’re discussing and they’re Not Very Happy with you. Apparently, they claim, you’ve got it all wrong and they’re offended about that. They might be a person of colour, or a queer person. Maybe they’re a woman, or a person with disability. They could even be a trans person or a sex worker. The point is they’re trying to tell you they know better than you about their issues and you know that’s just plain wrong. How could you be wrong?

Don’t worry though! There IS something you can do to nip this potentially awkward and embarrassing situation in the bud. By simply derailing the conversation, dismissing their opinion as false and ridiculing their experience you can be sure that they continue to be marginalised and unheard and you can continue to look like the expert you know you really are, deep down inside!

CONGRATULATIONS, YOU HAVE PRIVILEGE!

Just follow this step-by-step guide to Conversing with Marginalised People™ and in no time at all you will have a fool-proof method of derailing every challenging conversation you may get into, thus reaping the full benefits of every privilege that you have.

The best part is, you don't even have to be a white, heterosexual, cisgendered, cissexual, upper-class male to enjoy the full benefits of derailing conversation! Nope, you can utilise the lesser-recognised tactic of Horizontal Hostility to make sure that, despite being a member of a Marginalised Group™ yourself, you can exercise a privilege another Marginalised Group™ doesn't have in order not to heed their experience!

Read on, and learn, and remember… you don’t have to use these in any particular order! In fact, mixing them up can really keep those Marginalised People™ on their toes! After all, they are pretty much used to hearing this stuff, so you don’t want to get too predictable or they’ll get lazy!

It's poe-etic.

[colubridae]

http://www.derailingfordummies.com/menu.html

You know how it is. You’re enjoying yourself, kicking back and relaxing at the pub or maybe at the library; or maybe you’re in class or just casually surfing the internet, indulging in a little conversation. The topic of the conversation is about a pertinent contemporary issue, probably something to do with a group of people who fall outside your realm of experience and identity. They’re also probably fairly heavily discriminated against - or so they claim.
The thing is, you’re having a good time, sharing your knowledge about these people and their issues. This knowledge is incontrovertible - it’s been backed up in media representation, books, research and lots and lots of historical events, also your own unassailable sense of being right.

Yet all of a sudden something happens to put a dampener on your sharing of your enviable intellect and incomparable capacity to fully perceive and understand All Things. It’s someone who belongs to the group of people you’re discussing and they’re Not Very Happy with you. Apparently, they claim, you’ve got it all wrong and they’re offended about that. They might be a person of colour, or a queer person. Maybe they’re a woman, or a person with disability. They could even be a trans person or a sex worker. The point is they’re trying to tell you they know better than you about their issues and you know that’s just plain wrong. How could you be wrong?

Don’t worry though! There IS something you can do to nip this potentially awkward and embarrassing situation in the bud. By simply derailing the conversation, dismissing their opinion as false and ridiculing their experience you can be sure that they continue to be marginalised and unheard and you can continue to look like the expert you know you really are, deep down inside!

CONGRATULATIONS, YOU HAVE PRIVILEGE!

Just follow this step-by-step guide to Conversing with Marginalised People™ and in no time at all you will have a fool-proof method of derailing every challenging conversation you may get into, thus reaping the full benefits of every privilege that you have.

The best part is, you don't even have to be a white, heterosexual, cisgendered, cissexual, upper-class male to enjoy the full benefits of derailing conversation! Nope, you can utilise the lesser-recognised tactic of Horizontal Hostility to make sure that, despite being a member of a Marginalised Group™ yourself, you can exercise a privilege another Marginalised Group™ doesn't have in order not to heed their experience!

Read on, and learn, and remember… you don’t have to use these in any particular order! In fact, mixing them up can really keep those Marginalised People™ on their toes! After all, they are pretty much used to hearing this stuff, so you don’t want to get too predictable or they’ll get lazy!

It's poe-etic.

[Audley Strange]

Here's the thing about this claim of privilege that annoys me which is analogous. Writing believe it or not is a very open field but a very difficult field to make any impact on. I've had meetings with T.V. editors, producers comedians and recently publishers and though I have yet to make any impact at all, this is, I am convinced a pretty fair market. However I knew of this guy from Newcastle or Hartlepool who was in a similar situation, only he couldn't even get by rejection letter state. Why? Well frankly it was because he was a terrible writer. His screenplay he showed me was literally a poor novel he'd fail to publish and then used macros to make look like a script. To him, it was not his lack of talent that was the problem. It was a conspiracy of Oxford and Cambridge boys that infested Aunty Beeb who hated those from the north. When I pointed I never saw that he claimed that was because I was, being Scottish "an ethnic minority."

Privilege means "private law" more commonly it means "one law for you, another for me." It does not mean "I don't like certain behaviours, that they are displayed evinces a protected and oppressive class." Especially when this claim is not particularly evidence.

As an example. I have been beaten up several times in my life by drunk Rangers or Celtic fans. Their reactionary sectarianism is a blight on this fucking country of mine. They get to march down the street singing deeply offensive songs, deliberately antagonise each other and people like me, who hate football and are not interested in their tasteless backwards mindset are often caught in the crossfire. During Rangers and Celtic matches the number of reports of violence and domestic abuse often goes through the roof.

Am I marginised? Are they privileged?

I'd say no, I don't think that the Protestant and Catholic males from West Central Scotland who act that way are privileged, far from it, I think witnessing this first hand all my life, many of them are impoverished both educationally and financially. I don't think I'm a victim, I don't think my experiences should mean that every football match in the country should commit to a plan of action to make it comfortable for people like me to attend. Would I like to see less of sectarianism? Indeed I fucking would, it's a social retardant. So is the best way to go about that to find a stamp collecting club and then talk about nothing but how terrible rangers and celtic are? How about if I complain about rampant sectarianism at the last Stamp collecting festival, where one guy sang the sash and another asked if I wanted to watch the old firm game in his room? Would it be reasonable for me to insistthat when I am not taken seriously start to bitch about the leaders of the stamp collecting club, demanding stamp collecting be a sectarian free zone and then labelling anyone who disagrees with me as enabling wife beating. Would it be okay if I had one sympathetic stamp collector of repute stand up for me and start saying stamp collecting should be about more than stamp collecting, but it should be about tolerance towards both catholics and protestants and who hunted the web for sectarian jokes to villify people vaguely related to his stamp collecting site.

Would it be fair game if I and such "stamp collectors" were "exposing" the names and addresses of other Stamp Collectors who didn't vocally condemn all forms of rampant sectarianism as pro-hate? Is it rational calling fellow stamp collectors vermin and cockroaches, while whipping up people into a frenzy of hatred against them and all the while being oblivious to one's own "privilege" as they would call it?





It's a fucking stamp collecting club.

[Jason]

So you write screenplays for the BBC.. this explains much.

[Audley Strange]

So you write screenplays for the BBC.. this explains much.

I wish.

I wrote a couple of screenplays, there was some interest in them, nearly got a pilot but didn't. Nothing exciting to tell.

[hadespussercats]

I haven't read the rest of the thread, but this link came to mind when I read the OP.

http://captainawkward.com/2011/12/05/de ... thing-sad/

I thought of it in part because she links to the article in the OP as a leaping-off point.
I think it's a good read.

[Trinity]

OK, tell me how to do the TM thing

[Bella Fortuna]

OK, tell me how to do the TM thing

Copy paste from someone else like I did.

[Sean Hayden]

Press ALT then 0153 like this ™

[Trinity]

thanks Bella. I like the simple answers x
@ Sean tried it and no worky

[Robert_S]

Audley, you point out that privelege means: "private law". How much different is that from a double standard? Isn't that pretty close to one law for me and another for you, but it applies more to the unwritten laws?

[Sean Hayden]

Sorry, use the number pad. ☺

[Audley Strange]

Audley, you point out that privelege means: "private law". How much different is that from a double standard? Isn't that pretty close to one law for me and another for you, but it applies more to the unwritten laws?

Indeed. Double standards. Was that not what things like discrimination laws were brought into prevent? However what unwritten laws? Manners? Decorum? Civility? The fact that they are unwritten suggests they might not be laws for a reason. Also is it not double standards to say Group B to claim that group A are allowed to be mocked and ridiculed because no one has the right to be offended yet claim group B has the right not to be mocked and ridiculed because it offends them because they see it as oppression?

This is the crux of my position. That and I think that conflating trivial issues with serious ones are liable to make the person doing so look ridiculous. Calling someone ridiculous because you consider their exaggerating their concerns does not mean you have even a problem with their concern let alone the entirety of the group that also has similar concerns, it just means you think they are being ridiculous.

I don't see why I should have to validate someone's horseshit, because it upsets them if you don't agree with them. That's the kind of thing children want. Pity.