Conversation

I'm starting to think it's intellectual malpractice to write/talk about privilege, class, oppression, etc. without revealing at least 2 generations of family and educational history. There is a suspicious pattern of 2nd/3rd generation privilege joining the privilege commentariat.
10
88
I'm very interested in hearing from people who have opinions shaped by a 2-3 generations of hard-won upward mobility. I'm less interested in what the grand-daughter of a 1950s industrial tycoon whose parents were beltway lawyers has to say about these topics in the new yorker.
3
47
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
Replying to
I don't follow any such bureaucratic principles of criticism. If the author's background seems entangled with the substance of what they're saying in a relevant way, I have no problems not poking.
1
Replying to and
In fact, separating substance from personal background is one of the most challenging intellectual tasks in speaking and I expect 99% of people to fail at it. Which means it generally WILL be relevant. The challenge is in fact identical to self-actualization.
1
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
Replying to
If there's good reason for anonymity (eg. fear of oppression), then there's probably other ways to make up for not revealing family history etc. Basically, make a best-faith effort to establish where you're coming from in talking about stuff.