does anyone outside of a minority group that has historically and currently

[cali]

suffered from bigotry, have the standing or right or whatever you wish to call it, to criticise members of that group regarding that bigotry and associated actions or definitions?

[WDIM]

1. People of all colors have and do suffer from bigotry.

Where you are determines if you are a minority and also determines the type of bigotry that is present.

Criticising no.

Having a debate and an understanding of what bigotry is yes.

[cali]

2. I'm unclear how you have a debate that precludes criticism

[Bluenorthwest]

3. In my experience that is a moot question because those critics feel entitled to criticize so calling

them for having no standing is pointless. Assume that they will do so, be prepared for it. I mean, any honest person can take a look at DU's reception to LGBT activism and see clearly that straight people have no problem at all lecturing us about how we should do what. Many people who very strongly support the tactics used by Black Lives Matter are on record very strongly condemning LGBT activists for using those tactics and on record giving absolute rejections of the tactics themselves. That demonstrates huge bias. It is not just one or two people either. It's many, many.

With LGBT issues, you will find that Straight Religious people will preach at us all day long, even if they are in the wrong. We have been shredded for criticism of the Pope, of Rick Warren, of Donnie 'they are vampires' McClurkin. Days before the Inaugural, Rick Warren called us all pedophiles and we were told to accept that, because Barack loves Ricky. Barack, who went to pander to Ricky's people to the cheers of his supporters.
Double Standards make me sick.

[cali]

4. interesting points.

[sibelian]

13. You've been making this point continuously now for some time.

I've noticed that not a single one of the culpable have come to challenge you, which doesn't surprise me.

I remember it well. Thank you for continuing in your efforts.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

5. The end result of saying 'no' is to proclaim that any action taken is legitimate.

Including bombings, murders, terrorism.

If you can't criticize those actions, it legitimizes them.

I think there is a more universal opportunity to say that certain things are wrong, independent of why someone might be doing them. It is wrong to murder, no matter your reason. You might stop multiple murders, but it's still wrong, just like torturing the terrorist in the ticking time bomb scenario.

So the question is not 'How does this act serve a purpose', but simply 'Is this act morally wrong', no matter what the intended purpose?

[unblock]

6. i think everyone has a "right" to opine, criticize, etc., but

everyone else has the "right" to take it with a grain of salt. the size of that grain of salt depends on the individual speaker. not necessarily just membership in a group, but the actual individual.

i try to keep my ears open at all times (and i try to recognize that, being human, i'll sometimes fail even at that), i see that as key to progress all around. so i don't like the idea of any group dismissing criticism or feedback from someone just because it's coming from outside that group.

having said that, i certainly recognize that if you're outside a group, you're usually not well placed to make the most constructive criticism. hence the grain of salt. then again, membership in another group can offer a fresh insight.

personally, my own heritage as a jew, and the annual passover story of our delivery from slavery in ancient egypt, taught me that none are free until all are free. for me, this motivates me to be a strong opponent of discrimination in all forms, whether against people of color, lgbt, religious beliefs, national origin, etc.

i'd like to think i can contribute something useful in the struggle for equality even if i'm not on the short end some particular discrimination; that doesn't mean i'm not discriminated against for other reasons, or that i don't "get" discrimination. but i recognize that most criticism from outside a group is useless at best and damaging at worst.

generally speaking, i'm very, very wary about criticizing in such situations. doesn't mean i'll never do it, but it does mean i try to be very careful and sensitive in such situations.

[WinkyDink]

7. People do it all the time with Jews.

[cali]

9. yes they certainly do. happens here quite a bit. I've seen duers excuse, defend

and minimize even the rackets antisemitism.

[NaturalHigh]

8. Absolutely. To say otherwise is just an attempt to silence.

[dsc]

10. they have every right to say what they want

and the members of the minority groups have every right to tell them to go pound sand.

[Brickbat]

11. This.

[cali]

12. sure, that cycle can go on in perpetuity.

[sibelian]

15. As a gay man...

I prefer to go to some effort to tell them why I think they're wrong...

I can't really recall any time in my life where explaining my existence to people who don't understand it was less successful than taking offense at their unworldliness.

[ananda]

14. I see nothing wrong with any criticism that a person ..

.. judges to be valid and is given without making it an unhelpful
attack..

.. as long as the person or group that is being criticized has the
opportunity to answer and defend themselves if they feel the
criticism is wrong or invalid..

.. and the one making the criticism is willing to listen and discuss
the issue like the adults we are all supposed to be here.

For example, if a Black person or group says that liberals/progressives
are white supremacists -- for whatever reason -- as a liberal I would
have to look at that accusation in two ways: first, introspectively, to
see if it might apply to some unconscious racism that I still hold; and
secondly, to decide where the group defined as liberal or progressive
also has a tendency towards unaware racism that they have not seen,
acknowledged, or dealt with.

That is only the decent thing to do, really, if I want to continue being
any kind of ally, hopefully a good or better one.

But if I were to just take it personally and get in a huff and then leave,
what good would that do me or anyone? After all, if just one person is
oppressed, then everyone is.

[Prism]

16. Criticize away - but tone is important

Like BNW, I'll use my own community as an example.

When LGBTers protested, it would've been one thing to say, "That was an inappropriate venue/tactic." Even if I disagree with that assessment, it's fair enough. Criticize the LGBT movement's self-appointed leadership? By all means. That's what we do.

But that's not where DU went.

"You're racist!"
"You just want a pony!"
"You have plenty of rights already!"
"Nice poutrage!"
"You never loved Obama anyway!"
"You're going to lose the election for us!"
"Why don't you protest Republicans?!"

And on. And on. And on. And on. Too many examples to count. Much more vile sentiments accompanied that. That's where the problem lay. I do see very similar problems with the criticism of BLM. It's fine to disagree with that woman in Seattle, but people are going much, much further with it. That reaction does a lot of damage, and people who don't necessarily agree with her tactics will not be endeared to the people leveling that kind of carnage.

And like BNW, I'll note too the vast pits of hypocrisy on this issue now. People who just bazooka'd the LGBT community on this board in defense of President Obama now find themselves on the receiving end of what they spent years dishing out. I feel bad - they're human beings - but damn if what goes around comes around doesn't apply in spades in some cases.

[sibelian]

17. Yes, of course they do. In fact, it's necessary.

The result of conflating criticism with prejudice within any demographic is invariably an insane group-think whose culture tends further and further towards entrenching that exact conflation. The sub-culture is almost always entirely subsumed by the efforts expended to deflect meaningful communication. The content the sub-culture generates increasingly morphs towards a self-reinforcing monoculture whose entire purpose becomes seeking out opportunities to treat neutral communication platforms as arenas within which said conflation can be legitimised to the conflation's adherents - ultimately to the exclusion of the relation of all other meaningful experience within the sub-culture that has become host to this ghastly head-fuck... PARTICULARLY the relation of personal experiences of members of the sub-culture that permit criticism.

It's as predictable as clockwork. Once the group has become a monoculture, it can be manipulated at will.

Do we think that political analysts whose campaign strategies are dependent on carefully moulded demographic expectations are ignorant of all this?

Hm. No.

[Le Taz Hot]

18. I reserve the right to open my mouth

(or take out my keyboard) to praise or criticize any individual, group or movement at any time I choose.

Permission isn't sought nor required.

[whatthehey]

19. Surely. But it will in part determine credibility

I'm not black for example. Can't, wouldn't try to, no feeling that I need to, speak about what it feels to be black in a white-dominated country with a long and continuing history of racism. But that doesn't mean I have no personal history or expertise in protests and cause advocacy (though to be honest it's a mediocre level of both). While obviously I am perfectly allowed to talk to BLM advocates about race and racism, I can only offer a mainstream Dem white perspective they doubtless already know well so why bother? But I can surely to the limits of my knowledge share opinions on their tactics and political approach because I've done that, and I understand that, as much as many of them do. Some more, some less obviously, but there is nothing inherently black or inherently white about protest and advocacy tactics. There we are, or should be, equals and there should be no difference in credibility or "standing" in that discussion simply because the cause for which the protest and advocacy is intended might be one that does not personally affect both parties.

It's very easy for advocates to conflate the two. We've seen lots of people tie criticism of the Seattle protests/protestors with criticism of BLM's cause and the anti-racism anti-police brutality cause in general, when the two are not connected at all. This conflation is seemingly situational though. In the case of the man who assaulted a racist woman and forcibly entered her home to take down a confederate flag, few people defended his actions here even though it's pretty much a given that we all agree with his perception of the symbolism and the problems with its racist coding. Nobody so far (haven't looked back at the thread lately) suggested that criticism of his actions should a) only come from black people and b) attacked the whole cause of limiting the official presence of the rebel flag, and yet those objections are routine for criticism of the Seattle protestors' actions, even when it's clear that only their actions, not their cause, are being criticized.

[sibelian]

20. "it's clear that only their actions, not their cause, are being criticized"

Yes, perfectly clear, to all involved, including those pretending that it isn't clear.

[MisterP]

21. there's been a long problem of Whites "representing" a group

without something like the lived experience shared by that group--but that's usually a problem with socially-liberal economic conservatives more than pinkos (who easily bring race, gender, whether you're alive or dead into the analysis)

but most discriminated groups want to get the group society tries to make dominant talking and thinking about how everyone's life experience differs (and also how variation within groups relates to variation between them)

there's not that many minorities that want to RAISE the wall of segregation between groups in the name of some abstraction they learned online or after a few quarters in college: to those types what you actually did and said in the past doesn't matter; separatists are a very small subset of activists

[sibelian]

31. "separatists are a very small subset of activists" - true, however

they are very often the most active and widely known activists. It is far easier to build an ideology out of division than out of unity.

[mia]

22. Better to reflect on another's perspective than to issue a put down or criticism.

This is how I kept the lines of communication open with my children. Better to ask why and reflect a while. Criticism implies that we know where a person is coming from. It's important to find that out.

When it comes to groups, one person's behavior can reflect well or poorly on the values held by other members.

[cali]

24. Isn't it possible to do both?

[mia]

25. yes.

Last edited Fri Aug 14, 2015, 09:16 PM - Edit history (1)

but I think it's important to get a lot of clarification before you criticize. I think that public figures are responsible for clarifying their positions at all times. They should expect to be criticized.

[DirkGently]

23. Identity politics in any context is stupid RW thinking.

So we have two different things continuously conflated.

1. The fact that people have differing views and experiences based in part on their cultural identity. We recognize, and have to remind ourselves, that even the most thoughtful people with the best intentions cannot fully "get" what it is like to stand in the shoes of someone who is treated differently because of who they ARE.

2. Identity politics is the notion that people are on or off "the team," or gain or lose credibility or trustworthiness or desirability based on who they ARE, rather than what they DO -- the "the content of their character" MLK spoke about.

Rightwingers hate No. 1; love No. 2.

To them, identity is just a cudgel to swing around. Equality for all just doesn't compute for them, so they think that when members of a group not receiving equal treatment demand it, what they really want is to gang up amongst themselves and dish out the same unequal treatment they have received.

But we're not having it. We will not dismiss anyone based on who they are. We will look at what they do. We will not dismiss what someone has said and done in favor of what they look like or who their parents were or any bullshit at all like that.

"Your opinion doesn't count because you're a _____" doesn't fly for anyone in any context, period.

We will judge on the content of character, and rightwingers of any stripe swinging the cudgel of identity politics can go directly to hell.

[NuclearDem]

26. Criticism isn't the issue. One can criticize groups like the NBPP or NOI for being antisemitic.

The problem is with trivialization and refusing to listen. What BLM did in Seattle was rather aggressively confront white progressives with a very real problem with how AAs are treated and respected in the progressive movement. The aggressive nature of the protest wouldn't have been necessary had the progressive movement as whole taken the AA community's issues seriously all along.

And frankly, the reaction from mostly white progressives proved the need for that protest; people were much more comfortable believing this was a Clinton/Soros hitjob than acknowledging something rotten in the movement that needs confronting.

[Eleanors38]

27. Sure.

[Maedhros]

28. All political action is, and should be, subject to critical analysis.

Politicians, activists, writers, and speakers should be judged by their actions and the content of their message, not by their identity.

[GitRDun]

29. We all have the right to criticize, the question is, will the criticism have an impact

Tactics matter - Groups in a minority, be it race, religion, LGBT are used to being criticized. Thoughtfulness, tone, respectful language makes a difference. Snark, derision, shouting down, cuss words, are all routine for the minority, they likely won't hear much if a person uses these tactics.

Perspective Matters - You can't frame a criticism in the perspective of the majority while having no notion of the minority's worldview. It's a fail every time.

If the bandwagon is going down main street usa, are people more likely to get on if they see warmth, fun, etc. or a bunch of folks looking mostly the same jumping all over a few that look different?

[Rex]

30. Free country. You post or open your mouth and you take your chances.

Kinda like here.