Thank you. Part of what initially upset me about your original comments was that I was reading you as using the so-called "non-divisive" "universal" we, where majority interests are allegedly neutral and in the best interest of everyone, and thus there is no conceivable need to distinguish between parties in a conversation. Even after you revised your emphasis on majority interests, that usage of "we" seemed to persist -- sometimes "we" meant a majority group, sometimes a minority group -- which bothered me. This clarification helps.
:: It's not anyone's duty to create or keep this knowledge, it's rarely safe or wise to hand out information when majority cultures come a'knocking, and I shouldn't have placed so much importance on humanity-as-a-whole getting all the knowledge we can get our hands on. ::
Agreed, yes. And the line of oyceter's that you quoted, about the need to move some parties to the center of the conversation, is crucial.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Wed, Aug. 5th, 2009 06:05 pm (UTC):: It's not anyone's duty to create or keep this knowledge, it's rarely safe or wise to hand out information when majority cultures come a'knocking, and I shouldn't have placed so much importance on humanity-as-a-whole getting all the knowledge we can get our hands on. ::
Agreed, yes. And the line of