Was talking to someone who may be in trouble because of disclosing too much to someone she no longer trusts in Twitter DMs.
General guide. Never ever say anything you wouldn't be happy to announce from a stage.
Hormones are the WORST "proof" of trust followed by ideology.
She approached me thinking that I say many bold things, so I would understand why she did what she did.
I say bold things because I am a bold person. My main timeline is actually more 'bold' than any private messages to anyone.
If you find yourself saying something you hope no one comes to know, DON'T. That is the only real way for no one to come to know.
DMs or WA Chats may seem private, but they are not, unless you guarantee the person on the other end will ALWAYS have your trust.
YES it is fascinating to see many outspoken people say things that seem outrageous, but remember anyone who lasts here for long with dignity in tact is usually very precise in what they express, even if it seems outrageous. Throwing words around on the internet is a bad idea.
Don't give out private information that you would usually protect.
Don't make admissions of emotions you wouldn't be happy to declare out in the open.
Don't say things that could create political or social or personal risk for you thinking it is private.
Just don't.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The 'appropriating' someone's voice argument is used so illogically sometimes that it is verging on fallacy.
A person speaking their own perspective is not appropriating anything.
It is an ad hominem attack that also adds false accusation to basically shut someone up.
Regardless of the subject. Even if it is a man speaking on women's rights, savarna speaking on caste discrimination against dalits, corporate rich fellow talking of poverty, whatever.
Own perspective is not appropriation.
OTOH, it is appropriation when someone not from that identity claims to speak what their reality "really" is. Particularly when it contradicts stated reality by that identity. This must be opposed.
The distinction is huge. One is interested participation. Other is suppression.
Ghar wapsi continues. Now with an attempt to help community (his followers) too find a good response to self harm.
Probably gets awkward when they are surprised at his U-turn
So it seems from people who do self harm being attention seekers, we have arrived at a place where Brumby is doing his best to find a better response to self harm that doesn't get him spanked.
Not bad for under a week, eh? Practically transforming as we watch.
Unfollow anyway.
All Brumby ever asked for as per today's version is that you don't glamorize self harm and he is still against wokes. Unclear why, since he appears headed there himself.
So I had not really intended to talk about this since the woman in question didn't have a problem.
My reason for speaking up was more that if you're making a space claiming to respect women, then respect them, not trash talk their opinions even after she disagreed first time.
The thing with this not a democracy, my space, my rules thing is that this is exactly what women go through (Which was being discussed just prior). Spaces they live in are usually controlled by men, their opinions are often trashed and their rights can be conditional to approval.
My point was that if he invited her to speak in his space, he owed her the respect of not trashing her opinions.
That said, he was fine after a topic change AND the woman in question did not mind, so it is not my place to object further beyond the space when I was speaking.
Spent some time thinking about this thread. At the moment, hard to see how what you call the "militant Ambedkarites" can assimmilate anything. Whatever the reason, lack of trust with other castes, emerging strength... hard to say from the outside, but it is a fortress.
I had brought this up several years before too. I had called it the dalit extreme right. It was not as vocal as it is today, but this insularity, perceived by the most vocal among them as strength also serves to isolate and disempower.
From the outside, it appears identical to Brahminism, except reversed. You aren't good enough unless you are dalit.
The overall social response appears to be to leave them be, and a wariness/unease at the hostility.