i really would have liked to see you explain that cultural relativism isn't an excuse for abuse without talking over the person who rightfully pointed out that the original slavery comparison was neither apt nor useful to the discussion.
sorry, but it is useful. when you’re trying to explain how a general theory of the psychology of violence works and how it applies to one realm of human interaction, it is useful to provide multiple points of reference.
if others want to enter into the discussion in order to expand it rather than silence it, that’s fine. that’s great. but if anyone’s “talking over” anyone here, it’s the person who came into a post that was about a particular application of systems of moral justification that underlie many forms and expressions of violence, a framework which requires that comparisons be made, and attempted to end that entire analysis on the basis of the notion that it’s inherently wrong to compare how different forms of oppression work. that notion is not only logically flawed, it’s actively harmful to theoretical understandings of violence and marginalization. it’s tantamount to saying that these forms of oppression don’t function on the same basic rules and patterns and interactions, and to saying that therefore people who study race issues, gender issues, disability issues, age issues, etc can’t learn from each other.
I would’ve been very happy for someone to come along and say “this framework you’re talking about is really important and here’s how I see it pertaining to [x]”. or even “I know you can’t be expected to build a fully nuanced discussion of slavery in the space of a single paragraph meant to provide another point of reference for readers, so here’s how I see this applying to race both historically and today, and how I think that builds on what you’ve said about age”. either of those would’ve been reasonable responses. hell, even “well, I get what you were trying to do in offering examples of the multiple ways this phenomenon expresses itself, and I realize the importance of understanding the psychology of violence in a general sense, but I think you oversimplified this” would’ve been productive. “this comparison is inherently bad and you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about” wasn’t. who’s that supposed to help, exactly?
I’m perfectly willing to admit that, while I think I have a relatively strong grasp of race issues compared to most people, there are certainly many others who know more than I do and could have things to add to that conversation, or well-deserved constructive criticism about how I presented a very complex historical institution of injustice as a secondary example of the theory of violence I was describing. but that’s not what that response was. this is the difference between reasonable critique and pointless callout culture in a nutshell: nothing in that person’s comments was intended to advance the discussion, bring more people into it, or even make a necessary course correction. it was simply intended to tell me I had no right to say what I’d said. and that is not apt or useful.
