Abstraction

[badgerbag]

http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/010999.html

What? Oh, that? No of course I'm not talking about that. It's just totally abstract.

Comments

[akirlu.livejournal.com]

Hey, as long as we define someone else's getting "their acts together" as thinking and behaving in ways that you agree with and based on theories of reading you subscribe to, there's absolutely no reason you should give people the benefit of the doubt that they'll do that. Because they won't.

But as long as you assume malice, you're unlikely to understand people. That's your choice, of course. And no doubt it feels a lot fuzzier than supposing that any of the miscommunication problem falls on your side.

[lavendertook.livejournal.com]

OK. So why is it OK to dismiss out of hand someone who is pointing out racism, or to question the good faith of the person doing that pointing out?

[akirlu.livejournal.com]

I don't know. Why is it? Is that question supposed to relate to something I've said? It looks like you're attributing beliefs and premises to me that I do not, in fact, hold.

[lavendertook.livejournal.com]

But as long as you assume malice, you're unlikely to understand people. That's your choice, of course.

[ladyjax.livejournal.com]

Hey, as long as we define someone else's getting "their acts together" as thinking and behaving in ways that you agree with and based on theories of reading you subscribe to, there's absolutely no reason you should give people the benefit of the doubt that they'll do that. Because they won't.

I'm not expecting anyone to think exactly like I am. When I expect people to "get their acts together" when it comes to discussions about racism, it means I expect them to engage in the struggle - not roll out when it got tough. And not to sit back and turn the whole thing into a conversation about how hurt they are. Like no one else was hurt by it at all. That's bullshit and it's dishonest.


But as long as you assume malice, you're unlikely to understand people. That's your choice, of course. And no doubt it feels a lot fuzzier than supposing that any of the miscommunication problem falls on your side.

And I say again, it's rare that I ever write people off completely. It's not something I like doing. More likely I'll stop talking to someone first and maybe we'll come back to it later and maybe we won't but the door still is open to some degree.

I have the right, and I'm sure you've opted to do the same at some point of your life, not to let crap in when it has no use. This does not.

Should you want to continue this conversation, you can contact me at ladyj dot 965 at gmail dot com. I'm not going to hijack Liz's journal with this.

Liz, I'm sorry this is getting out of hand and I'll take it somewhere else.

[badgerbag.livejournal.com]

Well, I don't think you're hijacking at all and in fact I appreciated you having my back. Thanks and I'm also sorry it's out of hand.

Akirlu, I do wish you would post your thoughts on racism and anti racism in your own journal. I don't know why you want me and my commenters to explain racism to you and I don't like how you argue.

[akirlu.livejournal.com]

I tend to be more interactive on meaty issues than declarative. I'm not sure an essay from me is likely to produce more light than heat, even if I did have a coherent thesis about racism versus anti-racism, especially since what I've been tail chasing in all these discussions isn't that, but communicative disconnects in the discussion, and how wildly different theoretical assumptions make it very hard to talk fruitfully about much of anything, especially something as charged as racism.

I don't believe I'm asking anyone to explain racism to me. What I am doing is trying to get at people's underlying assumptions -- the premises they're arguing from, not least about what the term "racism" means to them and how they apply it, and whether they really think that use and application is what people they have disagreed with have, since I don't think even that was ever established in the big blow up.

I guess I'm not surprised that you don't like how I argue -- we have pretty different approaches, and a whole raft of different premises, and I have a hard time overcoming what I see as the problems of the Post Modern theoretical approach.

But if you're asking me to stop replying here, I can do that.

[badgerbag.livejournal.com]

Well, that is fair.

Actually I was just saying to Ide Cyan on IM that I almost never go into picky logical arguments, though I like to read them sometimes. Possibly that is why I'm driving you nuts. If you want to get into it with Ide, who is an expert picky logical arguer, I'll eat some popcorn and watch and try not to lose my mind over whatever is said. I have to go do my day job now, though...