>Sorry, no, no way.
Denying someone's lived experience is obnoxious. Excusing that obnoxiousness by introducing a false slippery slope seems like an excuse to not be conscientious.
Denying someone's lived experience is obnoxious. Excusing that obnoxiousness by introducing a false slippery slope seems like an excuse to not be conscientious.
There's no conflict in acknowledging that someone does hear a high-pitched noise in the presence of a particular device and at the same time do not accept that this would be a sufficient reason to prohibit such devices or turn off a particular device; and at the same time one can acknowledge that the term 'blacklist' is offensive or triggering to some people and at the same time not accept that a term being offensive or triggering to some people is sufficient justification to require the world to change that term.
Or how about this one: what if someone says their lived experience has always been a negative interaction with every member of some specific racial group. You then believe them and accept their racist views as legitimate?
I just can't accept that you actually believe what you are claiming. We all must evaluate and judge so called lived experience on its merit, not blindly accept it as legitimate.