Re: Women, fire, and dangerous things

Kathryn Aegis (
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 08:45:23

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