Re: Why is it important not to call pureblood prejudice racism?
(Anonymous)
Look, I suggested this only reluctantly. I know you particularly hate having people comment on how you say things. I noticed this a few days ago, and I've been hesitating over whether to say anything. I finally decided to because I thought it would avoid more conflict down the line.
As a matter of fact, I am not a hypocrite. You see, what I said about suggesting that this was a rhetorical strategy? I saw that as the positive alternative, where you were inadvertently making accusations you didn't really mean.
It was what you said earlier in the thread led me to believe that that was a strategy you were using. First you had said:
If you want to reject the label of racism for blood prejudice, then I submit to you that blood prejudice is just as foul as whatever you would call racism.
I responded:
If one considers all prejudice equally bad, and one believes that everyone else in the conversation also has that perspective, why would this need to be said? Naturally, I assumed that you thought that at least *someone* here didn't agree with the perspective that all prejudice is equally bad.
The key moment, where you answered:
I figured the response to my statement would be “of course blood prejudice is as bad as racism” and then we would have a point of agreement.
Does your answer not sound exactly like what I suggested you were doing, here?
I'm sorry you took my post badly, but I did actually mean to be helpful.
Well, that kind of statement has less offense potential than the declarative statement in the PS, but for me (I can't say for you, since I can't read your mind) sometimes a question is more honest, since I can't always say I think the positive alternative. Sometimes I'm leaning more towards the negative alternative. Better to ask the question, I think.
This is the Internet; if you get other people's views wrong, they will not hesitate to correct you. ;)
Questions may sound more neutral, but my point was that they *aren't*, necessarily. If you still think it's better to ask the question, then that's your prerogative. I simply wanted to point out that you may be phrasing things in an inflammatory way, without realizing it.
(After all, no one can anticipate every possible reaction to their words.)
Lynn
As a matter of fact, I am not a hypocrite. You see, what I said about suggesting that this was a rhetorical strategy? I saw that as the positive alternative, where you were inadvertently making accusations you didn't really mean.
It was what you said earlier in the thread led me to believe that that was a strategy you were using. First you had said:
If you want to reject the label of racism for blood prejudice, then I submit to you that blood prejudice is just as foul as whatever you would call racism.
I responded:
If one considers all prejudice equally bad, and one believes that everyone else in the conversation also has that perspective, why would this need to be said? Naturally, I assumed that you thought that at least *someone* here didn't agree with the perspective that all prejudice is equally bad.
The key moment, where you answered:
I figured the response to my statement would be “of course blood prejudice is as bad as racism” and then we would have a point of agreement.
Does your answer not sound exactly like what I suggested you were doing, here?
I'm sorry you took my post badly, but I did actually mean to be helpful.
Well, that kind of statement has less offense potential than the declarative statement in the PS, but for me (I can't say for you, since I can't read your mind) sometimes a question is more honest, since I can't always say I think the positive alternative. Sometimes I'm leaning more towards the negative alternative. Better to ask the question, I think.
This is the Internet; if you get other people's views wrong, they will not hesitate to correct you. ;)
Questions may sound more neutral, but my point was that they *aren't*, necessarily. If you still think it's better to ask the question, then that's your prerogative. I simply wanted to point out that you may be phrasing things in an inflammatory way, without realizing it.
(After all, no one can anticipate every possible reaction to their words.)
Lynn