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.
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.
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.
The distinction is huge. One is interested participation. Other is suppression.
Participation by people from various perspectives allows a fuller understanding of an issue as well as greater energy in fixing problems.
Demonizing participation with hostility and false accusations harms causes.
Demonizing participation with hostility and false accusations harms causes.
We have seen several examples of good participation in recent times behind effective protests. You don't hear farmers rejecting the voice and opinions of supportive non-farmers or Muslims rejecting the voices of non-Muslims who speak up in support of them. And it shows in effect.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
