3 ms·
Implying that op intentionally omitted wilson-thompson If you mean that the alleged "intent" of the OP is political, I don't see how the comment implies that.
by charlesism 8y ago
Implying that op intentionally omitted wilson-thompson
If you mean that the alleged "intent" of the OP is political, I don't see how the comment implies that.
To point out that the edited headline no longer includes Kathleen Wilson-Thompson isn't accusatory. It's just a statement of fact. To "exclude" is but the opposite of "include."
- AlexB138 8y ago> If you mean that the alleged "intent" of the OP is political, I don't see how the comment implies that. It's pretty obviously the intent. They didn't use the very specific identity of her name, or the more general "other appointee" or any other simple generalization. They specifically pointed out "the woman of color", which pretty clearly shows their intent to be suggesting that she was excluded because of her race and sex. It's the difference between saying "John will be at dinner" and saying "A Muslim will be at dinner". It's intentionally highlighting part of their identity rather than just addressing the specific person.
- charlesism 8y agoIt's one thing if iandanforth expresses concern about diversity, and something else if he accuses the OP of bigotry. I don't see an accusation. To say it's a shame to leave her out of the title, doesn't imply the OP left her out for nefarious reasons. Ellison is much more famous.