Redditor has a bad time at a gay orgy. The level of entitlement is astounding. This is what happens when you have little to no real world experience and fall for what the internet tells you.

submitted by Chipit from (i.imgur.com)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]yousaythosethings 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

None of this is about “lived experience.” What is this girl’s “lived experience” as a gay man? Gaytrending isn’t about some subjective “truth.”

“People’s spoken truths are truths?” Let me introduce you to narcissistic personality disorder and other Cluster B personality disorders. See also Donald J. Trump. With the personality-disordered and especially narcissists, emotions and feelings create their “reality.” Their “truth” is whatever they need it to be in that very moment without any regard for logic or consistency. They truly believe it because they need it to be true. Based on their “logic,” they can know your motivations and your own “truth” better than you.

We should in no way be enabling this and other antisocial tendencies, much less codifying it into law. The worst thing you can do for someone with a personality disorder is to enable and coddle them. It’s cruel, destructive, and unsustainable for them and for everyone else.

[–]Chipit[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Lived experience is the primary way in which knowledge can be obtained. Have you heard of Michel Foucault’s idea that knowledge is always culturally contingent and thus a function of power? That is, knowledge is something local to a particular people at a particular time, and it is just politics by a particular means.

You still operating comfortably within privilege and unaware of it due to internalized dominance. This is nothing but straight-adjacent language.

[–]CCwind 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

How do you respond to someone that has studied Foucault's work and found him to take a small idea and expands it to preposterous conclusions in contradiction of all other evidence? The observation that culture plays a role in how we interact with and describe the collected knowledge isn't nearly enough reason to write out the possibility of objective and universally applicable knowledge. By impugning the motives of anyone asserting some bit of knowledge, Foucault splits the potential for discussion into those who arguing from within a Foucaultian framework or a framework that accepts the existence of knowledge completely independent of who is expressing it, but not both.

You still operating comfortably within privilege and unaware of it due to internalized dominance. This is nothing but straight-adjacent language.

If you are going to summarily dismiss arguments on the basis of assumptions you make about the other person and the judging their language to be summarily invalid, then I hope you are ready to be dismissed just as easily.

ETA: if you are actually trolling, I'll tip my hat to your success.