 |
 |
Sorry to have been unclear in reference to the rebukes, anger, and condescension generally directed at Josie's opinionation, Lawrence--didn't mean to imply that your post specifically engaged in one or more of these types of responses. On the contrary, it was admirably impersonal compared to others, and I didn't disagree with your definitions of "devil's advocate," etc., as commonly understood. You did seem to be posting a reprimand directed at a single listee for herself posting views you found distasteful from any quarter, and that's condescending on its face, I think. But you didn't display the anger that does personalize debate and is so destructive of it, leading to inflammatory implications of anti-Semitism, for instance. I was increasingly dismayed over the course of the day by such increasingly inappropriate responses to Josie's expressed (if not personally held) opinions--dialogue on Poetryetc seems to invariably founder on just such ill-judged responses, I think. What I _don't_ think is that your posts participate in this list _tendence_, so apologies for the misunderstanding--Candice on 1/25/02 7:13 AM, Lawrence Upton at [log in to unmask] wrote: > | Hey, come on, Lawrence--this isn't fair. We're all of us living in glass > | houses when it comes to prejudice, > > agreed > > and it doesn't logically follow that > | popular opinions are any freer of prejudice than unpopular ones. > > didn't say that - and the popularity or otherwise of the ideas never > occurred to me; I am used to uttering ideas which are extremely unpopular > > In my no > | doubt blinkered opinion, Josie's just as entitled to the courtesies as > | anyone arguing the other side, > > agreed > > | and rebuking her > > I disagreed with her terminology > > | or condescending to her > > I don't think I did; but may we not tell each other when we think they are > wrong without being accused of condescension? Maybe that's why exam results > are going up all over USUK > > (Beginning a response "sigh" is, though, quite near to condescension) > > or > > | expressing anger at her, personally, targets _her_, not the opinions to > | which everyone's entitled to take exception. > > I did not express anger at the person. For that there would have had to be a > missing element. My anger is at pernicious ideas. > > L