Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8936373" data-attributes="member: 71699">Very true! On account of implications that I expect were made evident through my question's insouciance.A heuristic that I understand from diversity and inclusivity training at work, is that it has to be up to the injured party to decide if and how they are injured. The other party has every reason to claim that no injury is being done. They have no personally-felt motive to desist as they are not directly subject to the harm. The doing of the injury may even rely on acts or views that suit them quite well. If the injured party are a minority, they often cannot rely on norms to help them (existing norms will often best support continuation of the harms.)I see your heuristics as fair-minded and helpful. I don't feel able to go all the way to agreeing with you as I think that if I say something that offends another party, it is not up to me to deny that they are offended, nor am I best positioned to say what the cure should rightly be. It must be - as I believe you are emphasising - a negotiation... in my view one weighted in favour of the injured. There can as you point out be stakes on both sides: if a label suits me quite well, that is probably because I am relying on something that it implies, and it may not be fair to ask me to set that aside... although I believe it would be fair to expect me to say what I mean rather than relying upon a semantic loading.Perhaps it's worth considering what is at stake, which is fruitful conversation. I believe the gains made by giving offended parties opportunity to put forward labels that are neutral - even though as you say that can't be done as a simple fiat - are worth giving ground for. If giving ground seems to have a cost, then perhaps as I say there really is a burden on the other side to articulate that cost, rather than rely on the label to do that work.</blockquote>

Verification