“Shut Up and Listen” can be good advice if framed in the right way “sometimes there can be a lot of value in just shutting up and listening, unfortunately, once you start speaking there’s a good chance that this causes people to shape their views to be more palatable to you”. Unfortunately, over the last few years, people have been using this as something of a power move to shut down opinions and I have to admit I find your framing of “there do seem to be some people” as somewhat strange given that this has been occurring all over the place.
Most public political discourse seems dysfunctional to me. While this also applies to people who appeal to the principles of Standpoint Epistemology, I think some people have mistakenly come to the conclusion that this means the philosophy underlying Standpoint Epistemology is incorrect. However I think most of the time the problem isn’t with Standpoint Epistemology, but instead with people having a goal of undermining the discourse, which they can do with superficial similarity to any mode of interaction.
I think Standpoint Epistemology is an especially unfortunate target of this, because it seems to me that Standpoint Epistemology, applied properly, is the thing that is necessary to pass through the undermining of discourse.
“Shut Up and Listen” can be good advice if framed in the right way “sometimes there can be a lot of value in just shutting up and listening, unfortunately, once you start speaking there’s a good chance that this causes people to shape their views to be more palatable to you”. Unfortunately, over the last few years, people have been using this as something of a power move to shut down opinions and I have to admit I find your framing of “there do seem to be some people” as somewhat strange given that this has been occurring all over the place.
Most public political discourse seems dysfunctional to me. While this also applies to people who appeal to the principles of Standpoint Epistemology, I think some people have mistakenly come to the conclusion that this means the philosophy underlying Standpoint Epistemology is incorrect. However I think most of the time the problem isn’t with Standpoint Epistemology, but instead with people having a goal of undermining the discourse, which they can do with superficial similarity to any mode of interaction.
I think Standpoint Epistemology is an especially unfortunate target of this, because it seems to me that Standpoint Epistemology, applied properly, is the thing that is necessary to pass through the undermining of discourse.