zlacker

>>femfos+(OP)
This is kind of the end result we're heading for, where you can only talk candidly with people who are equal or lower than you on the oppression hierarchy. The shitty part is that I'm pretty sure 99% of people are reasonable human beings but the media has to make it seem like that isn't the case so the risk equation changes. Similar to how kids used to roam around the neighborhood but now it's deemed too risky because the media makes it seem like there are murderers lurking around every corner.

>>jxidjh+S4
> where you can only talk candidly with people who are equal or lower than you on the oppression hierarchy

Wouldn't someone talking to someone "lower" on the "oppression hierarchy" just be what we basically have today? That sounds like "privilege," or an "imbalanced power dynamic." I think you'll only be able to talk to equals, whatever that is, and by whatever metric is en vogue for that day.

>>cronix+La
I do some work with HIV prevention. Sometimes I give talks where I'm very blunt about the realities of HIV among men who have sex with men. I've watched people immediately shift from mild hostility and discomfort to wholehearted acceptance of what I am saying, when I tell them I'm gay myself.

In that circumstance, I think it is clear that my sexual orientation is the basis by which they are judging the authoritativeness I have to speak on the topic. Never mind the formal qualifications, or the logic or veracity of what I am actually saying. Like, I know we all have little unconscious checklists like that for judging whether someone is credible, but it is uncomfortable to see the effect live.

>>retrac+7l
You see this on Reddit all the time, every day.

Someone wants to disagree with whatever nonsense the hivemind is raving about in the moment, but in order to do so they have to prostrate themselves and make it clear whose side they're on before they make their (often very valid) point.

e.g. "I hate Trump just has much as the rest of you but..." or "Look we need to be super supportive of X group and my dad is actually X but..."

>>fastba+yt
That definitely happens, but sometimes the motivation is a bit more nuanced than just crawling to the mob. With everything so tribalised, and most people unwilling to stick their neck out and call their ingroup on its bullshit, we end up in situations where anyone expressing a dissenting opinion is quite likely to be an extremist of some kind -- or at least solidly on the 'other side' -- because they are the ones most likely to be motivated to speak up.

So if I preface an opinion with 'X, but', it may not be all about begging for the right to dissent; I may have good reason to think that, without the preface, what I say will signal some beliefs or values that I don't hold. If those things are genuinely hurtful to a vulnerable group, or simply reprehensible to me, then I have good reason to disavow them, regardless of whether I need to do so in order to be heard.

>>retsib+2G
Yeah, but isn't that the same thing, said in a different way?

If I'm hyper-paranoid about my statement signaling beliefs I don't hold, isn't that just an indication that people are trying to assume too much based on that "signaling"?

>>fastba+gO
> Yeah, but isn't that the same thing, said in a different way?

Sort of, and it's definitely part of the same dynamic. The differences, or at least the points I wanted to emphasise, are:

- I thought you were focusing on people's need to signal their in-group membership and general conformity (sometimes sincerely, sometimes not) so that they might be listened to and not shunned. I was pointing out that the motivation for the caveats can have a less cynical/craven strand: the simple desire to clearly communicate one's true values and beliefs.

- We might be collectively reinforcing this state of affairs without individually doing anything irrational. You say 'people are trying to assume too much based on that "signaling"' -- but given the equilibrium we're currently in, if someone expresses unpopular opinion X on hot-button topic Y in context Z without any caveats, I may be quite right to suspect that their real views are even more extreme, and/or that they come as part of a broader ideological package. If that's not the case, and the person wants to express their actual unpopular opinions without appearing to hint at the other ones, they may be right to add the tortuous preface. If they do so, the strength of the implicit signal sent by those who don't add the caveats increases, and the cycle continues; none of us can unilaterally break it without (on the receiving end) wilfully ignoring implicit meaning, or (on the sending end) risking being completely misunderstood.

edit: also, I don't know if you were implying this is a notably modern/progressive thing, but I think the basic dynamic is pretty universal. Definitely right now in the circles I live in, I'd mostly be afraid of signalling right-wing stuff. And the whole thing does seem to have increased in intensity over the last decade or so. But I see people in the various right-wing tribes being just as conformist, and I don't think it's really anything new. I'm confident that people arguing for less conservative interpretations of the Bible 20/50/100/1000 years ago were very careful to signal that they were genuine pious Christians.

(I don't like this dynamic, by the way. I'm a bit of a literalist, I like to make clean logical distinctions and evaluate each idea on its own merits, and I'm not very comfortable with the world of social signalling and game-playing we all seem to be trapped in. But it's completely pervasive (not only in political contexts) and I don't think people are wrong to read and react to the signals, even though they sometimes do it badly.)