And you should resist the urge to label every point you're too lazy to address a straw man.
Says the guy citing a shite internet poll to "prove" his point.
What needs to be demonstrated, here, is that either I or the people with whom I share an affinity on this point are really claiming "that someone else's reaction to your behavior should always be the only consideration in determining its merit." Your link points to a poll that only asks whether "offensive" language should be subject to legal curbs. Its irrelevance to the point requiring demonstration ought to be self-evident, but it can be seen plainly enough once we note that nothing about the poll examines what counts as "offensive," or how "offensiveness" is to be determined. In other words, a person could adopt exactly what you would perceive to be an "appropriate" standard for determining the content of "offensive speech" (for example, one employing objective standards that are rationally defensible) and still come down on one side or the other in that poll.
I don't think that other people's reactions to my behavior are the only relevant considerations in determining its merit. I also don't think that most people who would reject modern "blackface" would take that view. You haven't demonstrated that anyone does. So, yeah - I think it's pretty fair to describe your initial response to me as presenting a strawman.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2013-11-04 01:30 am (UTC)Says the guy citing a shite internet poll to "prove" his point.
What needs to be demonstrated, here, is that either I or the people with whom I share an affinity on this point are really claiming "that someone else's reaction to your behavior should always be the only consideration in determining its merit." Your link points to a poll that only asks whether "offensive" language should be subject to legal curbs. Its irrelevance to the point requiring demonstration ought to be self-evident, but it can be seen plainly enough once we note that nothing about the poll examines what counts as "offensive," or how "offensiveness" is to be determined. In other words, a person could adopt exactly what you would perceive to be an "appropriate" standard for determining the content of "offensive speech" (for example, one employing objective standards that are rationally defensible) and still come down on one side or the other in that poll.
I don't think that other people's reactions to my behavior are the only relevant considerations in determining its merit. I also don't think that most people who would reject modern "blackface" would take that view. You haven't demonstrated that anyone does. So, yeah - I think it's pretty fair to describe your initial response to me as presenting a strawman.
Now stop wasting my time.