> This is is the usage of "bias" I became accustomed to in undergraduates.
A disagreement is a disagreement, and it is a perversion of language to call
it a bias.>
Actually what I recall from our set-to last summer was, put very politely, no less than 'bias.' If LBO was archived I'd supply you with chapter and verse. Disagreements are totally besides the point.
> > I was pleased to note that
> > you characterize the entirety of straight males on this list as
> > incapable of auto-critique.
>
> This approaches deliberate distortion. She also characterized
> neolithic communities, marxists, lesbians, you have it as
> incapable of auto-critique. She claimed it was simply
> impossible for *anyone*. Since anyone includes straight
> males you are technically correct but intellectually and
> morally off base.
Again my recollection of the context was the literal phrase "straight males." Don't recall if 'white' was a qualifier. The fact that she included other gross generalizations as well does not improve the analysis.
> You do well when you simply elaborate your political and
> economic views, incorrect as they are, but your brain seems
> to soften when you attempt personal attack.
I don't think I get personal much, if at all. Once in a while something riles me up (e.g., the characterization of OAAU as a "snakepit").
You might recall Mme. Y referred me to our local S&M Club, which I thought deserved some equally feeble effort at humor, especially in light of her airs of superiority over the great unwashed.
mbs