Christopher Gwyn wrote:
>
> Darryl Shannon wrote:
> > Christopher Gwyn wrote:
> >> 1.) Do you agree or disagree that citizens of the People's Republic
> >> of China are all - each and every one of them - fully human in all
> >> respects?
> >> 1A.) If you do agree that '*they*' are 'fully human', >and therefore
> >> 'think like everyone else', then why do you suggest that "we don't
> >> know how *they* really think"?
> > Listen, Christopher, I think you are being silly here.
> I don't.
>
> > Did you honestly not understand John's point, that public opinion
> > cannot be accurately determined in a totalitarian state?
> it was not clear to me that that was his point. it seemed likely to
> me that that was what he was meaning - but it was _not_ what he said.
>
> > (Whether in can be
> > accurately determined in a non-totalitarian state is another argument).
> agreed.
>
> > Did you HONESTLY think he meant the Chinese people are sub-human? You
> > are better than that.
> Do I think that he meant to imply that? No, and I never said I did.
> Do I think that he came too close to saying that? Yes, much too
> close.
> Do I think that his word-choice was influenced by the congruence
> between his perception of the People's Republic of China as a
> fundamentally different political _system_ (an 'other') and the
> culturally supported perception of 'other races and cultures' as
> fundamentally different from 'real people'? Yes. I have run into this
> sort of 'not racist, but' speech for all of my life and I am pretty
> darn tired of it.
>
I think it's pretty unfair and disrespectful to try to paint John with a
racist brush.
Try discussing the ideas instead of defaming the other person.
-j-
