This is a subject that I have mixed feelings about, to say the least. I've been meaning to write a blog post about it myself, but my rough notes are sitting in the queue with 160 other topics, and I haven't updated them since June 2008, so I'll try a quick summary here.
I sympathise with people if they want to have an "advanced" discussion without getting sidetracked into basic principles, particularly if they've already argued about the basics several times before. I also remember Priest (comics writer) saying that when he goes to conventions people always ask him about race issues (the black perspective on topic X), whereas people ask Mark Waid about whether Superman or the Flash would win a race, and he (Priest) would prefer to get general superhero questions for a change.
On the other hand, I think that a lot of topics associated with Privilege (e.g. feminism) are poorly defined, and they include a lunatic fringe. The xkcd comic on YouTube is a good example, where there are complete idiots on both sides of the argument (pro/anti moon landings). Given that everyone has a finite amount of spare time, how much should I spend investigating any particular theory before I decide that it's rubbish? If I read a particular book on a topic, but disagree with it, can I treat it as representative of the topic as a whole, or should I keep reading more books until I find one that I agree with (which may never happen)? Surely it would be fairer for the people who advocate a particular theory to actually say what their views are?
An extreme example is the "Hollow Earth" theory. Raymond Chen has reported on a proposed (but repeatedly delayed) expedition to the North Pole to visit the hole: 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007. Personally, I don't believe that theory, but then again I'm not a geologist and I've never been to the North Pole. Is it fair for me to dismiss their arguments out of hand, or should I read their books, and join the expedition so that I can see for myself?
Taking a more useful example, here is a comment from a feminist blogger: "It seems like the guys who almost agree with feminism are the hardest ones to reason with, because they think they're doing so well, taking that women's studies class, learning about these theories, engaging with the feminists about these issues, and even agreeing that women should be treated equally. Except the thing is, these guys are kind of just as dangerous as the outrightly hateful misogynists." That implies that "You're either with us or you're against us" - no middle ground. In order to stop being the enemy, I need to agree with her 100%, but she won't tell me what her views are because it's not her job to spoonfeed me. That's the point where I just say "sod it", and decide that it's best just to follow my own conscience.
no subject
I sympathise with people if they want to have an "advanced" discussion without getting sidetracked into basic principles, particularly if they've already argued about the basics several times before. I also remember Priest (comics writer) saying that when he goes to conventions people always ask him about race issues (the black perspective on topic X), whereas people ask Mark Waid about whether Superman or the Flash would win a race, and he (Priest) would prefer to get general superhero questions for a change.
On the other hand, I think that a lot of topics associated with Privilege (e.g. feminism) are poorly defined, and they include a lunatic fringe. The xkcd comic on YouTube is a good example, where there are complete idiots on both sides of the argument (pro/anti moon landings). Given that everyone has a finite amount of spare time, how much should I spend investigating any particular theory before I decide that it's rubbish? If I read a particular book on a topic, but disagree with it, can I treat it as representative of the topic as a whole, or should I keep reading more books until I find one that I agree with (which may never happen)? Surely it would be fairer for the people who advocate a particular theory to actually say what their views are?
An extreme example is the "Hollow Earth" theory. Raymond Chen has reported on a proposed (but repeatedly delayed) expedition to the North Pole to visit the hole: 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007. Personally, I don't believe that theory, but then again I'm not a geologist and I've never been to the North Pole. Is it fair for me to dismiss their arguments out of hand, or should I read their books, and join the expedition so that I can see for myself?
Taking a more useful example, here is a comment from a feminist blogger:
"It seems like the guys who almost agree with feminism are the hardest ones to reason with, because they think they're doing so well, taking that women's studies class, learning about these theories, engaging with the feminists about these issues, and even agreeing that women should be treated equally. Except the thing is, these guys are kind of just as dangerous as the outrightly hateful misogynists."
That implies that "You're either with us or you're against us" - no middle ground. In order to stop being the enemy, I need to agree with her 100%, but she won't tell me what her views are because it's not her job to spoonfeed me. That's the point where I just say "sod it", and decide that it's best just to follow my own conscience.