Talk:One of the good ones

This part
This part "On the other side of the coin, the idea of being "one of the good ones" is also used as a defensive mechanism by members of the "privileged" demographic, as a way to try to distance themselves from the oppression that is associated with this demographic. In a general form, this can often be a motivation behind self-identifying as a (male/white/straight) "ally". The central fallacy here is that one cannot be an "ally" or "one of the good ones" simply by proclaiming it[8] — only by actually putting in the work and self-reflection. " raises some questions that I feel would be good to answer in the article itself. Is there any such thing as "one of the good ones" for any demographic group at all? If there is, then is there "one of the good ones" for every demographic group that exists? If there is, then what is wrong with calling someone "one of the good ones"? If there is such a thing for some groups but not other groups, then why? how can some groups have good and bad ones and other groups not have good and bad ones? If there is no such thing as "one of the good ones" for any demographic group at all, then what do people mean to say when they say it? Why does anyone think that there is any such thing? Sewblon (talk) 01:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Good questions. I think the underlying issue is that "one of the good ones" is a construct based on a fallacy of categorizing individual people as being inherently good or bad, when what we need to do instead is focus on beliefs and actions and whether they lead to good or bad outcomes. It's a false and counterproductive construct, but a convenient one for people to fall back on, for various reasons, for example: a) it's much simpler and less effort to just peg individuals as "good" rather than assessing and fixing behavior, b) if you hold negative stereotypes about, say, a racial demographic you've never encountered in real life and then you meet an individual who does not conform to your stereotype, it's easier to just peg that person as a "good" outlier from the group than to question your own beliefs, c) if you're a member of an oppressed minority group surrounded by stereotypes, trying to present yourself as different from the others can be a coping mechanism, and d) if you're a member of a privileged group, identifying as a "good one" or an "ally" can be a (tautological) protective mechanism when someone calls you out on your behavior ("But I'm an ally, I can't be racist/sexist etc.!)", and rather than confronting your own privilege and facing the ways your own beliefs and actions may be subtly or inadvertently hurting others, you get to pin it all on the more overtly bigoted people and exonerate yourself because you're "not like that".Butter Melon Cauliflower (talk) 12:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

What I suspect this piece is getting at is that any time anyone calls anyone, including themselves, "one of the good ones." It undermines the idea of equality between groups by implying that this is an exception and not the norm. If that is the case, then it should be stated in the article. If not, then I really don't get what the problem is. Sewblon (talk) 01:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)