Livre d'Or

Logical rudeness here is equivalent to scientists saying, I'm simply not going to debate climate change or evolution with denialists, the evidence is clear, I'm going to move on and discuss more interesting stuff.

Sure, and I agree with Suber's point that there can't be a general duty to engage in debate with everyone. But in that case, CYP becomes just "you're so wrong that I'm not going to waste time engaging with you" and may as well be phrased that way rather than using a term which is generally heard as "my suffering has made me holier than you" or (as you say to naath) "only those with personal experience of this can talk".

People really object to being told, you don't know what you're talking about, you haven't had the relevant life-experience, whatever words you use.

This seems pretty odd to me, because what ptc24 calls the epistemic version is the least objectionable one to me. Mensch's conception isn't just the epistemic version, though: she's noticed that in practice, what happens is that gets shaded into the moral version "I know more (epistemic), and therefore I win, if you don't think so, you are a bad person (moral, rude)". Penny thinks that's not supposed to be what it's about but the term is defined by its usage, not by Penny. What you've actually got is a sort of social justice internet fandom (the intelligent end on feminist blogs and the stupid end on Tumblr) where CYP is in use as a sort of argument settler. regardless of what it originally meant to academic sociologists, say.