3 ms·
The move from "isms" as a character flaw to "isms" as a structural flaw makes this kind of analysis possible. Character Flaw: X is injured. you intend to injur
by mjburgess 6y ago
The move from "isms" as a character flaw to "isms" as a structural flaw makes this kind of analysis possible.
Character Flaw: X is injured. you intend to injure X as you did Y.
Structural Flaw: X is injured. X was injured by your neglect in considering the interests of X as you did Y.
"Mobile Gamer Egos" were hurt because they werent "properly considered".
The issue with this kind of structural analysis is that you have to show a duty that a person/system has towards X for their "neglect of X" to be their fault. This is routinely missising from the analysis.
- gotostatement 6y ago> The move from "isms" as a character flaw to "isms" as a structural flaw makes this kind of analysis possible. I actually think isms as a structural flaw rather than a character flaw is much more pertinent in many cases, certainly most cases that cause the most damage in people's lives. However, the idea that this documentation amounts to some kind of structural discrimination is facially ridiculous, and, in my view, offensive to the real causes whose language it's abusing.