Re: Why is it important not to call pureblood prejudice racism?
(Anonymous)
I already explained I was trying to use a strategy there.
So what on earth is wrong about my assuming that you were using it again?
There's nothing that terrible about using a strategy that's inadvertently inflammatory. I did say that I thought it was inadvertent. So why are you so outraged?
the crux of my point (that you seem to have missed) was that I am not just "raising inflammatory possibilities" without believing the possibility exists.
No, I didn't miss that. I understand that you want to check. But you can check with two different subtexts (note SUBtexts):
"I don't think you meant (bigoted suggestion) when you said such-and-such, but what I took from that was..."
"I get the impression from your saying such-and-such that you meant (bigoted suggestion)."
Maybe the latter is a more accurate representation of what you're thinking (which is fine), but you'll get confirmation however you phrase it. Maybe some people do consider the former subtext condescending. That hadn't occurred to me; I certainly don't find it condescending. But I am alerting *you* to the fact that there are people who will find the latter insulting, too.
With the ;), I was trying to restore this to a friendlier tone. Heck, the whole point of my original post was to head off possible conflict, for crying out loud.
I get your point about the condescension, although not everyone thinks that way. And I understand that you consider blood prejudice to be racism, and that that's because you find it a close enough fit. It isn't a hard concept to understand, just a hard one for me to agree with.
Lynn
So what on earth is wrong about my assuming that you were using it again?
There's nothing that terrible about using a strategy that's inadvertently inflammatory. I did say that I thought it was inadvertent. So why are you so outraged?
the crux of my point (that you seem to have missed) was that I am not just "raising inflammatory possibilities" without believing the possibility exists.
No, I didn't miss that. I understand that you want to check. But you can check with two different subtexts (note SUBtexts):
"I don't think you meant (bigoted suggestion) when you said such-and-such, but what I took from that was..."
"I get the impression from your saying such-and-such that you meant (bigoted suggestion)."
Maybe the latter is a more accurate representation of what you're thinking (which is fine), but you'll get confirmation however you phrase it. Maybe some people do consider the former subtext condescending. That hadn't occurred to me; I certainly don't find it condescending. But I am alerting *you* to the fact that there are people who will find the latter insulting, too.
With the ;), I was trying to restore this to a friendlier tone. Heck, the whole point of my original post was to head off possible conflict, for crying out loud.
I get your point about the condescension, although not everyone thinks that way. And I understand that you consider blood prejudice to be racism, and that that's because you find it a close enough fit. It isn't a hard concept to understand, just a hard one for me to agree with.
Lynn