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.
-
Show this thread
-
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 replies 6 retweets 49 likesShow this thread -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @CantHardyWait
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 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @vgr @CantHardyWait
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.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
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.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.