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.
The problem we're facing here is primarily one of disingenuous withholding of relevant context and inculpatory evidence that would demonstrate conflicts of interest or potential denials etc.
-
-
Experiential data when you're talking about experiences is not "authority" in the sense of educational expertise. More like fieldwork in investigative journalism. Proclaiming socialist values while hiding your trust fund is not "rigor". It is being disingenuous or stupid.
-
I won’t quibble over semantics - you’re trusting the person as an individual in this example, can’t independently verify the data, or you wouldn’t care about the provider of the data.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Maybe an example would help? I’m starting to suspect you’re talking about the glaring exception to my claim, of personal anecdotes.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.