Which means that the charitable interpretation is that they are redefining a word in a very non-intuitive way in order to to further particular agenda/discourse, to turn a particular straightforward word into a term of art so that they can then argue that uses that do not fit a particular theory are incorrect. I don't buy that as a useful contribution to genuine dialogue, no matter how much sympathy I might feel with the side that is in favour of it.
The non-charitable interpretation is that they are quietly knowingly attempting to ignore or downplay injustice that does not fit in with that particular discourse.
Besides I don't really buy the idea that no one has the power to put hate into action. We all have fists, and they are usually pretty adequate for putting hate into action when it comes down to it.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2009-01-19 09:17 am (UTC)The non-charitable interpretation is that they are quietly knowingly attempting to ignore or downplay injustice that does not fit in with that particular discourse.
Besides I don't really buy the idea that no one has the power to put hate into action. We all have fists, and they are usually pretty adequate for putting hate into action when it comes down to it.