From: Kathryn Aegis (k_aegis@mindspring.com)
Date: Tue Sep 28 1999 - 08:45:23 MDT
At 08:47 PM 9/27/99 -0700, Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
>I always want to know why offense was taken, but if I consider the
>answer unreasonable or if it interferes with my communicating clearly,
>I'll put the blame on the offended where it belongs.
Under that construction, if Person X treats, say, an African-American
person badly, and they have the temerity to take offense at that, then
Person X could say: well, it's his fault for taking offense. If someone
dares to stand up and say that they should be treated better, then it's
their fault for not going along with someone else's idea of civility and
the heirarchies within which they will grant that civility. As long as
Person X thinks it's 'unreasonable' (and reasonableness has not even been
defined), then Person X has no reason to change the manner in which they
communicate.
Sounds awfully like the 1950s to me. Sounds like Angry White Male
Syndrome, where everyone is out to get Person X. Sounds like a good way to
create a hostile environment for a lot of people out there who might want
to make a contribution to transhumanism someday.
Kathryn Aegis
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:18 MST