Long response from another thread
I'm going to try to keep this short enough to not be a hassle to read.
For you to claim that somehow all swingers are being maligned when the discussion has only mentioned a *very specific sub-group* that nobody has claimed is very large is nonsensical, unconstructive, and somewhat rude (as it paints those of us involved as somehow being "anti-swinger").
I'm not sure how to take this critique. I could, for example, write that "I really dislike those people who use poly as a cover for being unable to make up their minds and settle down into one relationship." It would make perfect sense for someone to point out that what I wrote was maligning poly people. I could then respond "Oh no, but I only meant a very specific sub-group," but really, that's kind of a weak rhetorical dodge. Maybe I had some sort of point there somewhere, but it's pretty reasonable for the reader to think that I've got some weird ideas about poly people after reading that.
But let's say that I don't have weird ideas. If someone was then to say, "Hey, that's not an accurate description of what being poly is, and it sounds like you're slagging the way that poly people do relationships," what should my response be? Should it be, "You shouldn't say that to me, because being accused of being anti-poly is rude!" or should it be, "Oh, that's not how I meant it; what I want to convey is [for example] that I wish people would always be clear when what they're really looking for is a monogamous relationship down the road, but are right now just dating around"?
I think it should be the latter. The former just shuts down the conversation. Incidentally, I wonder if this relates to Ceoli's point about politeness, which I was still wondering about.
It's much the same as when YGirl mentioned the possibility of a stripper having a drug problem-- you castigated her for maligning strippers, when she did no such thing. You didn't respond to what she actually stated; you responded to a notion that *nobody* had stated while trying to assign her responsibility for stating it. That's just not cricket.
All right, assuming that we agree about the following:
*There exist within our culture damaging stereotypes about strippers.
*Repeating these damaging stereotypes perpetuates them.
*Perpetuating these stereotypes leads to more damage, as it normalizes them and teaches them to people who may not have been exposed to them.
*We should not do that, unless we think that damaging strippers is a good idea.
...that leaves us with the question of whether or not YGirl's post did that. You presumably agree with YGirl that it didn't. I disagree, and stated so. So, the question then becomes whether or not it is "cricket" for me to express disagreement with you and YGirl.
So, again, I'll ask that you respond to what was actually stated and not something else. Or if you do respond to something else, make it clear that you're not responding to any statement actually made.
Well, you can ask that, but I'm not sure that I accept the premise that the author (or any individual person) has final say over what "was actually stated." When we communicate, we don't do so with perfect fidelity to our intent, and I strongly believe that we as authors need to acknowledge that a reader is going to have to perform an interpretive act in every reading.
Which is not to say that there's no such thing as a... um, "tendentious reading," which I think is what I'm actually being accused of. It's possible to deliberately misconstrue what someone is communicating in such a way as to make them sound like a bad person. I can assert all I want that I'm not doing that, but that's hardly going to change anyone's mind if bad faith is being assumed.
That said, in an attempt to address the "tendentious reading" idea, I'd say "expressing dumb, prejudicial ideas" doesn't make someone a bad person, as I think that we all do it. When I do it, I want it to be pointed out, because I think part of the project of being a member of a diverse community is ridding oneself of these ideas, which are often invisible to us.