I'm confused by your last sentence. How else can we decide which side or sides is/are being demeaned/marginalized other than intellectual debate?
back
2 comments
The terms are often used specifically to end debate, by negating the opinions of the accused without having to address the content of what was said.
None of these issues will be solved until those who feel they are being demeaned find the strength to address their opposition with the dignity they demand for themselves.
No, I wasn't trying to end debate. Your position is, in contrast, an appeal to motive which is a logical fallacy.
We cannot expect the people who have been discriminated against and oppressed to stand up on their own. That is not the approach of a civil society, that is placing the entire burden on the wronged party.
We can expect people who are discriminated against and oppressed - I don't doubt this as the case - to explain why and how they were discriminated against so that it can be addressed. We can expect there to be some semblance of discourse. We can only ask that the accusations remain truthful and not go beyond what actually occurred.
Nobody changes their opinion by being badgered. One must have empathy if one expects genuine change. We have objectively failed in this as a society, as is exhibited by how divided we are.
I'm personally tired of hearing how everything is the other side's fault, from both sides. We are drowning in straw men. Until we're willing to listen to each other and understand why people feel the way they do (yes, even those with the most vile opinions), we will continue down this path.
> How else can we decide which side or sides is/are being demeaned/marginalized other than intellectual debate?
The problem is that "intellectual debate" often ends up just being thinly-veiled excuses for why it's ok to discriminate against the marginalized group. It's kind of like how "intellectual debate" about phrenology was used to justify attitudes about different races.
I notice you didn't answer my question.