quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: *I don't mean antagonistic towards fringe activists, either. Does an interracial couple 'antagonize' a racist simply by being together where they can be seen by the racist?
In theory, no. But do you think it would be a good idea for them to go to a white supremacist meeting? Would you expect them to act civil in such circumstances?
As a practical matter of safety, or to avoid confrontation, of course not. But that's not what's being discussed here, as MattP pointed out. They're two different discussions, and there's another element as well. In politics it's supposed to be a matter of ideas battling, compromise, doing as much as one can with as little as necessary, a variety of things like that. But in the battle of ideas portion, neither side is obligated to recognize a portion of the battlefield where one side will behave in hostile ways that damage their own side and shrug their shoulders saying, "Hey, c'mon, this will upset them."
She didn't break into the home of someone who was strongly pro-life on religious grounds and wave her sign in their face, she engaged people who were already fighting.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Edit to add: Come to think of it, didn't the whole Sandra Fluke thing demonstrate that women will be called that on this issue totally without a sign or a reference to "sacred" things?
Yes.
I'd almost prefer that we just add a bit of pretense to outrage over blasphemy, of all things, just to make the response more stark.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:In theory, no. But do you think it would be a good idea for them to go to a white supremacist meeting? Would you expect them to act civil in such circumstances?
Nope, but I would still hold them fully accountable for their uncivil behavior. I wouldn't say a word to the couple about provoking the behavior. If I were them I wouldn't have chosen to go myself, but no one should have to modulate their behavior (and be criticized for not doing so) solely to avoid provoking racists or misogynists.
Exactly. So why would such a couple actually do such a thing knowing full well what the consequences would be? As I said in my earlier post, specifically to provoke such a reaction.
Note: This is not a criticism of the girl or this hypothetical couple, more of an acknowledgement of a well played gambit Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
Obama
unregistered
posted
Because people holding such views are at the very least subconciously misogynistic, so why not provoke them a little to unveil that misogyny to the masses?
Might as well ask why go on a rights march when you know that dogs and water cannons, or British soldiers with truncheons, await you.
IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
