5 ms·
Your points about the vagaries of activism and its targets are valid and I agree. However, you're still asserting that an entire line of conversation is impossi
by skorgu 17y ago
Your points about the vagaries of activism and its targets are valid and I agree. However, you're still asserting that an entire line of conversation is impossible or without meaning due to the presence of, as far as I can tell, a single word.
I'd very much like to continue this thread but I'd ask you to please elaborate on your position or support it in some way or we'll descend into "does not!" "does too!" rather rapidly. Alternatively we can attempt to frame the discussion in another way that you find meaningful.
- Goladus 17y ago> Your points about the vagaries of activism and its targets are valid and I agree. However, you're still asserting that an entire line of conversation is impossible or without meaning due to the presence of, as far as I can tell, a single word. Accepting generic sexism as the problem to solve is what ends useful discussion. It doesn't matter what specific words are used. James didn't use that word at all in the section I identified, but the point remains the same. And to be more precise, when I say "end useful discussion" mean that until the bad assumption is retracted, progress towards real understanding and, consequently, good solutions, will be difficult. Incidentally, the main point of the original article was to out the author as a woman. But the complaints about sexism are fairly obvious. My criticism was restricted to that and not intended to completely invalidate the entire post.