From: b.scott@csuohio.edu   
      
   On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 05:27:37 +0100, Gerry Quinn   
    wrote in   
    in   
   rec.arts.sf.misc:   
      
   > In article ,   
   > b.scott@csuohio.edu says...   
      
   >> On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 03:56:03 +0100, Gerry Quinn   
   >>  wrote in   
   >>  in   
      
   >>>> In general, I think one should avoid generalising from affectionate   
   >>>> ridicule of a privileged/more powerful group (white people in this case)   
   >>>> to "affectionate ridicule" of the corresponding less privileged   
   >>>> group(s).  Particularly if one belongs to the more privileged group.   
      
   >>> Perhaps both serve slightly different but useful   
   >>> functions.  Let's  assume, however realistic or   
   >>> otherwise it may be, that two groups exist,  and the   
   >>> 'privileged' group has chosen to share some or all of   
   >>> its  'privileges' with the other.  It seems reasonable   
   >>> that members of this  group will be concerned about the   
   >>> possibility of 'overshoot' in this  regard.   
   >>> Affectionate ridicule may serve to point up the details   
   >>> of the  transition, just as affectionate ridicule from   
   >>> the other group may have  pointed up the details of the   
   >>> prior inequality.   
      
   >> Ah, I see: ridicule from the top serves to show that the   
   >> privileged group aren't about to give up their privileged   
   >> status.  Calling it 'affectionate' is bullshit.  What you're   
   >> describing is 'We're being very generous, but you lot had   
   >> better not forget your real place in society'.   
      
   > Not really... just a recognition of the existence of   
   > conflicting groups and an acknowledgement that righting   
   > the ship shall not involve turning it upside down.   
      
   No, that's not what you described, though you've offered one   
   of the classic justifications.   
      
   > It's not feasible, I think, simultaneously to assert that   
   > there is an  inequity between groups, while denying   
   > permission for members of one or both groups to   
   > verbalise their perceptions of difference.   
      
   Who said anything about denying?  Within *very* broad limits   
   you're free to give expression to bigotry, especially when   
   you at least affect to sugarcoat it.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)