Thread by @mloxton

My story.

I was an avid #notallmen guy.

I parsed every statement in terms of my inclusion in whatever population set was being referenced - men, whites, English-speakers, tall people, etc.

Whatever group was being specified , I would point out that "not all X" were guilty

/2

I had an epiphany while doing a philosophy course on postmodernism.

Whether it was Foucalt, Derrida, or Lyotard, someone else, or a combination, I can't remember.

Maybe it was the "fusion of horizons" thing, or the "interpretation of text" bit, but there was a moment

/3

The insight was that it is more coherent, rigorous, and effective to suspend personal attribution and parse whether the claim had validity across any of four interpretations:

All
Any
Most
Speaker knowledge

(Formal logic folks might recognize A, E, and diamond)

/4

Is what the speaker is saying valid for ALL members of the set.

Is it valid regarding at least one member?

Is it valid regarding more than 50%?

Is it valid in context of what the speaker knows?

If any of those are true, I endeavor to understand and learn in that context

/5

As a result, I am unlikely to feel slighted by someone saying that "whites are exhausting", bc while I don't think I am exhausting, it's certainly true that many are

So why are they exhausting to this person?
What specifics of their experience leads to this thought?
Fix?

/6

Then I apply recursion to myself.

What am I doing that might be perceived in this way?
What are the causes?
What are the potential risks?
What can I do to self-intervene to reduce/mediate the risks?

I find this better than just freaking out or getting defensive.

~fin~