Steve (and Passion guided by reason) we see the world in precisely the same way. And I agree wholeheartedly that the her framing is misleading, you articulate well WHY it is misleading.
Perhaps Passion is correct that I should not use the term 'gaslight', but the one thought I was trying to add to all of this agreement, was the idea that…
Steve (and Passion guided by reason) we see the world in precisely the same way. And I agree wholeheartedly that the her framing is misleading, you articulate well WHY it is misleading.
Perhaps Passion is correct that I should not use the term 'gaslight', but the one thought I was trying to add to all of this agreement, was the idea that you could have acknowledged her point that some folks are in more able to cause damage because of their biases, but then go on to notice that white/black is not the only axis upon with such asymetries exist.
That is how I would have responded, simply because I think she (incorrectly) feels that you believe people are in equivelant positions, and she sees this as a false equivalence (as you do as well).
Still I acknowledge my approach would bring this distracting non-argument into the foreground, and my approach is more complex, which might loose the reader. but if the reader feels unheard, they may also be lost.
Anyway... the three of us have no disagreement on the invalidity of her arguments
Steve (and Passion guided by reason) we see the world in precisely the same way. And I agree wholeheartedly that the her framing is misleading, you articulate well WHY it is misleading.
Perhaps Passion is correct that I should not use the term 'gaslight', but the one thought I was trying to add to all of this agreement, was the idea that you could have acknowledged her point that some folks are in more able to cause damage because of their biases, but then go on to notice that white/black is not the only axis upon with such asymetries exist.
That is how I would have responded, simply because I think she (incorrectly) feels that you believe people are in equivelant positions, and she sees this as a false equivalence (as you do as well).
Still I acknowledge my approach would bring this distracting non-argument into the foreground, and my approach is more complex, which might loose the reader. but if the reader feels unheard, they may also be lost.
Anyway... the three of us have no disagreement on the invalidity of her arguments