• Because, at the end of the day, deference epistemology tells you not to evaluate certain things in certain situations. I think the potential of that for particularly egregious kinds of exploitation is obvious.

    If you say, well, this person’s perspective is what we’re going with, kind of regardless of what I privately feel, I think you’re going to encourage very recognizable forms of abuse, very recognizable forms of bullying.

    this specific point gets at the heart of the problem imo: fundamentally, you are outsourcing your position/analysis/evaluation to someone else, and you are doing so in a implies that person’s position is unimpeachable–but that’s obviously illogical and unreasonable to expect of anyone. nobody is correct on every issue, and furthermore someone’s lived experiences may be extremely important and priceless, but they don’t guarantee a person will come to a right or reasonable conclusion about an issue either. so when we normalize this kind of shorthand thinking, we ensure that our future analysis will somehow be errant, because a point that should be challenged will eventually go unchallenged, or similar.