I can&#x27;t speak for seibelj, but I don&#x27;t think you that telling people to stop being offended so easily amounts to telling disadvantaged groups to buck up and be quiet. Personally, I want people to start a conversation with me if I do something that hurts them. But I also have the basic expectation that people take the time to understand and consider what I am saying before they get offended.<p>I also don&#x27;t think that &quot;I reject your understanding of your experience, so your perspective is invalid&quot; is an unreasonable thing to say. Sometimes people don&#x27;t understand their experiences, and as a result, they misjudge the nature of reality.<p>The recent controversy at Yale over cultural appropriation in Halloween costumes is a good example: there were students saying that they couldn&#x27;t go to class because they didn&#x27;t feel safe after a professor made an argument that avoidance of cultural appropriation had to be balanced with free speech. I do reject that understanding of their experience; they experienced nothing that indicated they should feel unsafe. Nothing about the professor&#x27;s measured statement of disagreement indicates danger. Their perspective on that topic <i>was</i> invalid.<p>People&#x27;s feelings aren&#x27;t always valid; everyone is wrong some portion of the time. And that&#x27;s true of disadvantaged people, too. If we accept the rule that every opinion from an underprivileged person is correct, we&#x27;re opening ourselves to all sorts of wrong ideas. And if we discard all dissenting opinions from privileged people, we&#x27;re closing ourselves to all sorts of correct ideas. Truth is not solely given to the disadvantaged.