I mean “radioactive” in a descriptive political sense.
… yes, obviously. (How else could you have meant it? What did you think I understood you to be saying…?)
I agree that truth claims ought not be radioactive in this sense and it is a bad thing about the political landscape than they are.
This is all very good, and yet you still haven’t checked whether said claims are true. So what is this opinion (that “truth claims ought not be radioactive in this sense”, etc.) worth, exactly?
Yes, trans people can be discriminated against for being mentally ill. What I meant was that if someone says “trans people are often discriminated against and that’s bad” you should not respond with “well, trans people are mentally ill, what do you expect” as though (a) that’s universally true of trans people (b) that means the discrimination is justified.
Yes, once again, this is just what I assumed that you meant…
But that response makes perfect sense! Yes, one should indeed expect that a population with a substantially above-average prevalence of mental illness will experience substantially above-average discrimination. What in the world does it have to do with anything being “justified”…? Nor is there any implication of universality.
(So your parenthetical is unjustified; I understood you just fine, as you see. I simply disagree.)
I answered the question you asked (in a tone of confident assumption I would not be able to produce an answer)! I thought maybe you wanted existence proofs of me actually believing that saying a true thing can be bad rather than using that as a smokescreen for some reason
To which point it surely is relevant that you (I claim) did not, in fact, produce an answer.
(Possibly you disagree. But then that’s the disagreement, right? Whether your answer was, in fact, sufficient to answer the question. You will agree, at least, that there can be disagreement on this point, yes?)
I wrote:
I ask, of course, because I am skeptical of this notion that the truth of the claim might be admitted by both sides, with only its “appropriateness” being, by itself, evidence of racial animus.
And your examples reinforce, rather than undermining, this skepticism.
The type of person who I think you’re gesturing at would never want to admit that a radioactive claim might possibly be true and if anything might end up using smokescreens to try to avoid admitting that.
You don’t see any connection whatsoever between this description and your comments about how some claims are “radioactive” and you haven’t investigated them?
… yes, obviously. (How else could you have meant it? What did you think I understood you to be saying…?)
This is all very good, and yet you still haven’t checked whether said claims are true. So what is this opinion (that “truth claims ought not be radioactive in this sense”, etc.) worth, exactly?
Yes, once again, this is just what I assumed that you meant…
But that response makes perfect sense! Yes, one should indeed expect that a population with a substantially above-average prevalence of mental illness will experience substantially above-average discrimination. What in the world does it have to do with anything being “justified”…? Nor is there any implication of universality.
(So your parenthetical is unjustified; I understood you just fine, as you see. I simply disagree.)
To which point it surely is relevant that you (I claim) did not, in fact, produce an answer.
(Possibly you disagree. But then that’s the disagreement, right? Whether your answer was, in fact, sufficient to answer the question. You will agree, at least, that there can be disagreement on this point, yes?)
I wrote:
And your examples reinforce, rather than undermining, this skepticism.
You don’t see any connection whatsoever between this description and your comments about how some claims are “radioactive” and you haven’t investigated them?