|
Here Peter Staudenmaier is amazingly obtuse
on the nature of stigmatization. In his version, it is not possible
to be unjustly stigmatized.
To: <anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com>
References: <20040306002331.66763.qmail@web14425.mail.yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 13:38:30 -0500
Daniel wrote:
"Whether the label anti-Semite is ever stigmatizing (which
you have been trying to imply it is not)."
Peter Staudenmaier:
... The label "anti-Semite" can indeed be stigmatizing
when it is accurate. When it is inaccurate, no, I don't think
it has a stigmatizing effect. But then neither do you, as
your Schwarzenegger example showed. Or did I misunderstand
that one?
Daniel:
I'm afraid you misunderstood. To repeat, just because a successful
defense is possible does not mean that a successful defense
will always succeed, and this is true whether the charges
are justified or not. The Schwarzenegger example shows only
that one person escaped the charges, not that the charges
are never stigmatizing. This is pretty basic logic, I think.
I bought up Schwarzenegger example to show how people try
specifically to stigmatize with the charge. I did this after
you stated that you did not think being called an anti-Semite
was a 'bad' thing.
Daniel Hindes
Peter Staudenmaier did not respond to this post.
|
