It's a bit difficult to respond to this, as I feel like you've replied a lot more to what you're feeling in response to the discussion at hand and my comments than to what I actually wrote. Although I think the biggest point I wanted to make earlier was in fact that you appear to be doing exactly that with respect to other people, I guess that's a good comment to make.
I appreciate that you've felt attacked in the discussion, and I totally appreciate that having a number of people criticize your position can be overwhelming. However, I'm also seeing a lot of interactions of the following form:
You: A statement. Someone: That statement is problematic in its assumptions or claims about Islam. You: I'm not an Islamiphobe.
Watching discussions like this unfold is really frustrating for me, because I see how you/the person in your position and the people on the other side are arguing in good faith, but I also see how poor statements, misunderstandings, a different background for the basis of discussion, and arguing from emotion start to spiral out of control.
Usually, it follows the form I described above, and the "I'm not an Islamiphobe." response is the point of conversational breakdown, although it continues long after it.
I assume by now you've read "Derailing for Dummies" or some variant on the idea. I feel I should point out that you've used "I'm not a X-ist", "My X friend says I'm not a X-ist", and in this comment you've made allusion to "the tone argument". I'm not saying any of this makes you an X-ist, or even particularly makes you look like one, but it does call up the "haven't we done all this before, many times?" response.
I'm truly sorry to hear about the hate-mail. That shit is never appropriate.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-08-11 06:40 am (UTC)I appreciate that you've felt attacked in the discussion, and I totally appreciate that having a number of people criticize your position can be overwhelming. However, I'm also seeing a lot of interactions of the following form:
You: A statement.
Someone: That statement is problematic in its assumptions or claims about Islam.
You: I'm not an Islamiphobe.
Watching discussions like this unfold is really frustrating for me, because I see how you/the person in your position and the people on the other side are arguing in good faith, but I also see how poor statements, misunderstandings, a different background for the basis of discussion, and arguing from emotion start to spiral out of control.
Usually, it follows the form I described above, and the "I'm not an Islamiphobe." response is the point of conversational breakdown, although it continues long after it.
I assume by now you've read "Derailing for Dummies" or some variant on the idea. I feel I should point out that you've used "I'm not a X-ist", "My X friend says I'm not a X-ist", and in this comment you've made allusion to "the tone argument". I'm not saying any of this makes you an X-ist, or even particularly makes you look like one, but it does call up the "haven't we done all this before, many times?" response.
I'm truly sorry to hear about the hate-mail. That shit is never appropriate.