“Hearing “I hate men” shouldn’t make men stop being feminist. Hearing “fuck white people” shouldn’t make white people stop opposing racism. Your opposition to oppression should be moral and immovable.”
This is excellent.
“Shut up and take everything we say about our lived experiences, EVERYTHING, as the [god-damned] gospel and truth, and sit down and ask yourselves HOW you have been a part of perpetrating these systems that are killing us fast (guns) and slow (affecting our mental and physical health, our ability to work and provide for our families because poverty is fucking expensive).
The question is not IF you are a part of the problem, I am here to tell you that YOU ARE.”
This is somewhat problematic. A person’s interpretation of experience isn’t objectively true — it is subjective. Objective truth is found in data and rigorous analysis not perception. Still, it is important for individuals to have outlets for their frustrations, and these experiences can form data trends that are important in their own right. An example of such data shows that a growing number of individuals feel that discrimination against whites has become as big a problem today as discrimination against blacks and other minorities. It is unusual since there is virtually no other data to back up such claims. However, if we take such experiences to be gospel and truth it might lend itself to a morally-problematic platform. A platform where others are the root-cause of such adversity and where policy proposals that benefit society are minimal. What we ought to advocate is policy changes for the strengths inherent to them and not policy change based on subjective experiences. Things like civilian-review boards for heavily-policed areas provide balance and oversight. Things like paid family leave provide development resources. These policy proposals have measurable objectives that can be reached. They are “moral and immovable” in a way that identity blaming is not.