“United” under one God
1 Like
The converse also applies. The original blog post does not mention anybody having stated their offense at Moore’s remarks. Yet the discussion instantly jumps to how/why it is problematic. Which does sound a lot like saying that some hypothetical people are offended, steering the discussion accordingly. This is where the community guidelines get sticky here with regards to “avoid general talking points”. Sometimes the content practically invites them!
Why it is a harmful practice to indulge isn’t relevant? That risks knowingly setting bad precedent.
I see that not as an alternative, but a direct rephrasing of my quoted statement. The essential difference is that correctness and justice are matters of procedure, not identity. Nothing nor anybody IS their identity, identity is a stereotype, and internalizing it (surprise) invites further stereotypes. People ARE what they DO. And likewise both racism and justice are what people do - not what they are called. Correctness is correctness of action, not in second-guessing how one might be perceived.
I am - with complete self-awareness of all apparent irony - saying that this pejoration dance is an actual societal semantic derail which has never been and is never going to be productive. It substitutes politeness for fighting for real respect or rights. Even now we are seeing how racism and sexism didn’t diminish as much as we’d have liked since the big gains of the civil rights movement in the 20th century, because policing what people say only drives the attitudes underground without changing anything fundamentally about their attitudes or ideologies.
Well, not instantly. Initially there’s a consensus that his remarks were inappropriate. Discussion of “how/why it is problematic” was started by you.
Trying to work out what you mean by ‘the converse’ I can only parse that as “You shouldn’t tell people who aren’t offended by something to be offended just because it offends you”.
If that’s what you mean, seems a perfectly reasonable philosophy to me.
I don’t think the specific practice you mentioned is relevant.
As far as I know no ethnic group has particularly chosen “the reds” or the “the yellows” as a self descriptor. So this is not a case of a group giving up “their chosen/accepted label to the narrative of others”.
Which was rather my point. It’s an alternative way of putting your statement.
I agree with most of the rest of your post from the quoted point except that I wouldn’t say it’s a case of substituting politeness for fighting for real respect or rights.
I think that politeness is a skirmish in the fight for respect or real rights. It’s one that is still being fought since clearly even the minimal veneer of politeness is too much to ask for many people.
As for whether it is not productive, I’m not sure. I can say that far more people seem to be prepared to accept the idea that one should accept people as they choose to present themselves than they were when I was a child or that one shouldn’t use certain terms because it would be offensive (and with that the idea that the people who would consider it offensive’s opinions are worth respecting).
1 Like
Where do they find these hot-house flowers anyway? My grandfather was a sheriff and then a judge for a dry county in Nowheresville, Population: Caucasian, and he was Elaine Brown compared to this fool. He would have sooner told you what he saw in Iwo Jima than make a racial slur on camera.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
