On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 02:15:48 +1000 rc-am <rcollins at netlink.com.au> wrote:
> strains of habermas, right?
Huh. I guess so. I wasn't thinking of Habermas. Habermas is funny... I've been trying to find out if he's ever written on hate speech. One would think that someone so interested in discourse ethics would have at least put something down about this. However, I'm still looking.
> there are no safe spaces. and that in some ways is
the issue. no one affirms racism or sexism on this list,
because that, well, is not a priveliged discourse here.
but people still practice it and articulate it all the
time. and since the priveliged discourses here runs some
of the spectrum of leftism and progressivism, the ways in
which racism and sexism are expressed, as well as defended
from the accusation (if it's ever made), are generally
quite sophisticated deflections and legitimations.
I agree, there are no safe spaces on the internet. But I think that safe spaces can be created. And I agree with you about privileged discourses, defelctions and legitimations. And sometimes it is difficult to gage this (at least for me) - because issues of trust, articulation, error, honesty, and such are all entwined. What is really interesting / substantial / important / brilliant about Kelley's comments is the way in which she's traced a consistent pattern through a series of internet debates. Off the cuff, I might have said something stupid like, "nah, you are imagining things... it isn't that bad." But, it is. And, being quite politically naive, I was actually surprised.
ken