Liberal Absolutism: What do they have against sea lions?

I don't think it is gender neutral. It is obvious to me that man in the word was because many men will have this condescending attitude and over explain. It is not that women can't do it as well just the word was geared to men that quite frankly women would get fed up with.

So it is a real situation but it has become overused and often times used When it is not applicable.

But I don't understand why this is labeled as liberal absolution...just people using these words as an out.

I agree some people use it for that purpose because it is a convenient way to label someone...but it shouldn't be to stop someone from expressing their opinion.

Mansplaining is condensing over explaining not expressing an opinion. But yeah lots of these things are used to shut up or stop a person like labeling someone a Karen when they have a legit complaint and ate handling the complaint correctly.

Agree completely. The problem lies when people use this to stop someone who "looks" like the label but there true actions are not reflective of it. And that is happening as well.

The terms are not I agree but many do use these terms to stop someone else from expressing an opinion or expressing their dissatisfaction.

Judging the intent of the speaker has several problems.

1) Your judgement is subjective. You are making a judgement about what is going on in someone else's mind.

2) Your judgment is also biased. If you are facing a perspective that challenges your point of view, you have a reason to discount what what they are saying rather than considering it.

3) Your judgement about someone else's intent is probabaly wrong. Even when you guess correctly what is someone else is feeling, it is irrelevant. A speaker's intent is intellectually irrelevant to the content of an argument. A valid point is a valid point no matter who is making it.

The political left is discounting points of view because of who is speaking rather than what is being said. An example is when someone yells "White Supremacist" in a discussion about covid vaccine mandates. They are saying that a point of view is invalid only because of your opinion of who is making it. (This has happened here, and with Justin Trudeau).

None of which are insurmountable.


So what?


The two responses aren't mutually exclusive. You can do both. You can consider what someone is saying and decide to discount it.


But it is very relevant to the conduct of an argument. A sizeable number of online conservatives participate in discussion groups for the expressed purpose of "owning the libs" and are not interested in changing your point of view, only in insulting you.


A valid point in one argument doesn't automatically carry its validity and functional purpose over to another argument, even if it is factual.

I have used this example... but it fits here too.

The narrative of White Privilege is a valid narrative. It says that White People are treated better and given respect more than Black people (or other minorities.

White Privilege" is not a fact, it is a narrative. Sure, it is backed up by facts and I can show you plenty of examples and data to support it. But, I can also find some White people who are less privileged than some Black people. Reality is complicated; wealth, physical appearance education all play, and "privilege" isn't well defined. Different people have different ideas on what it means.

The problem comes when White working class people say "Hey! We aren't privileged". They also have facts on their side. Many White people, particularly uneducated people from working class families, are suffering economically, lack educational resources and don't get respect.

The problem is when you push a singular narrative to the exclusion of all other points of view.

This example, I think, explains how Trump got elected. This one-sided narrative got pushed so hard that these voters had nowhere else to go. Then they were accused of being racist... and that sealed the deal. There was no way back for them. For someone to step away from Trump they have to do this walk of shame; to admit that their perspective was wrong and accept that they are a racist. That isn't going to happen for most people.

My point is simple; Listen to what someone is actually saying, rather than focusing their label. Incidentally, the Democrats are about to lose big in the mid-term elections this year. If they start doing this, it will go a long way for them to stem the damage.

This is very disrespectful. You are clearly sealioning.

1. I know I am talking semantics.

2. I don't recall anyone I know, ever using the exact phrase "White privilege"

3. Some may have use other phrases such as "Driving while black".

4. Or someone might say such and such wouldn't have happened if that person were white.

5. Which is essentially the same as saying that a white person would have been given the benefit of the doubt.

6. Like I already said, I know I am talking semantics.

7. I don't recall anyone I know, ever using the exact phrase "White privilege"