)Anonymous wrote:I thought we were a post-racial society why the need for discussion.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous And yes, I have no problem saying that I find it arrogant and often a manifestation of white privilege for someone who is not a person of color, to tell a person of color how to discuss race/racism/politics of color in this society. [/quote wrote:
It's equally arrogant for you to tell anyone else how they are to discuss it, pp. Because you're being dictatorial. And the admonishment "check your privilege" is blatantly offensive and aggressive tactic aimed at shutting down dialogue, not to encourage it. It is, effectively, an attempt to "shame" adults who may not have the malicious intent you assume them to have.
Your perspective is valued. However, when you attempt to dictate the parameters of discussion in such a strident fashion that immediately attacks or dismisses those who have a different viewpoint, you forfeit the moral high ground you think you've staked out.
And if you use this same shaming technique with children, you fail miserably. Yeah, you can make kids succumb to intimidation. But they're not really learning the messages you think you are imparting.
In other words, stop telling others how to think, behave, and conduct themselves. It's uncivil.
Enough with the shame garbage, I never advocated that. Muss me with that bull****!
Anonymous And yes, I have no problem saying that I find it arrogant and often a manifestation of white privilege for someone who is not a person of color, to tell a person of color how to discuss race/racism/politics of color in this society. [/quote wrote:
It's equally arrogant for you to tell anyone else how they are to discuss it, pp. Because you're being dictatorial. And the admonishment "check your privilege" is blatantly offensive and aggressive tactic aimed at shutting down dialogue, not to encourage it. It is, effectively, an attempt to "shame" adults who may not have the malicious intent you assume them to have.
Your perspective is valued. However, when you attempt to dictate the parameters of discussion in such a strident fashion that immediately attacks or dismisses those who have a different viewpoint, you forfeit the moral high ground you think you've staked out.
And if you use this same shaming technique with children, you fail miserably. Yeah, you can make kids succumb to intimidation. But they're not really learning the messages you think you are imparting.
In other words, stop telling others how to think, behave, and conduct themselves. It's uncivil.
Anonymous wrote:OP again. FWIW, both perspectives make sense to me. We're down with emphatic (and hopefully have been emphatic enough in addressing this, but will ratchet it up a notch if it happens again) but not with shaming, just because that's not part of how our family approaches discipline. But I'm not super convinced that either of those responses does much to address the underlying thoughts--words and actions, yes, and those do matter to me too. But it's the thoughts I'm worried most about, because if we can address those I like to think that appropriate words and actions will [eventually] follow. And if we can't, I worry that even if the words and actions stop because of whatever stick or carrot we use now, they'll just resurface later in some other form. :/
)
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I am the poster to whom you are referring. I think you misunderstood me. Maybe you did not read all of the previous posts, because I was responding to posters who said that it was wrong to be emphatic. I did not say anything about white parents are not being emphatic. I was saying that there is nothing wrong with being emphatic and did not understand why others labeled this as the wrong approach. Just wanted to clear that up for ya.
thanks for responding.
No problem, I just wanted to be clear about my point. Other poster keeps arguing with me that being emphatic is shaming and traumatic and does not allow the kid to learn. I beg to differ. Maybe I have a different definition of emphatic
The other poster seems to be arguing that when you tell a child they are not allowed to use certain words, the child will stop using those words in conversation with you but may continue to think the words in their head. You seem to be arguing that by changing the language the child uses (eliminating the bad words), the thoughts will change in response. Neither of these arguments seem crazy to me. I'm surprised that each of you---two of the more thoughtful posters I've seen in my too-many years on DCUM---can't each see the value in the other's approach. Different strokes, I guess.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I am the poster to whom you are referring. I think you misunderstood me. Maybe you did not read all of the previous posts, because I was responding to posters who said that it was wrong to be emphatic. I did not say anything about white parents are not being emphatic. I was saying that there is nothing wrong with being emphatic and did not understand why others labeled this as the wrong approach. Just wanted to clear that up for ya.
thanks for responding.
No problem, I just wanted to be clear about my point. Other poster keeps arguing with me that being emphatic is shaming and traumatic and does not allow the kid to learn. I beg to differ. Maybe I have a different definition of emphatic